EPO Helps Mid D More than Long Distance?

Clerk, assuming what Aragon says can be correct, we have to consider two facts, well acclarated :

1) EPO increases the transport of O2 capacity

2) EPO increases viscosity.

Which is the system does our body use for transporting more O2, when we increase some type of effort, requesting more oxygen for working at incremental intensity ? It's only one : to increase the velocity of circulation.

With "clean" or "doped" blood, in any case a person increases the velocity of circulation when has a request of more oxygen supply.

So, the quantity of oxygen arriving to muscle fibers depends on two factors :

1) The total capacity of transportation (if Hb is like a lorry, of course to have bigger lorries, or more lorries, can allow blood to transport more oxygen PER EVERY BLOOD CIRCULATION

2) The velocity of blood circulation (if we have less lorries, but the same are able to pass more times through the same "stations", we can supply the same quantity of oxygen to the muscle fibers).

So, it's clear that the limit between to be "useful" to the performance, or to be "useless", depends on the balance between these two elements.

I already said many times that top runners Kenyan and Ethiopian (born, living and training in high altitude) have a blood with low viscosity, and are able to run a full competition at a higher pulsatory level than athletes of sea level (and training in altitude for some time only doesn't produce the same effects)).

Till now, nobody tried to measure the TOTAL QUANTITY OF OXYGEN that athletes are able to transport per unit of time (for example, every minute).

But, if this is true when we speak about the capacity to TRANSPORT oxygen, we must also look at another phenomen : the capacity TO REMOVE THE PRODUCTS OF FATIGUE (mainly lactate, but not only).

Since EPO doesn't have any influence regarding this physiological activity, we need to think that FASTER IS THE BLOOD CIRCULATION, QUICKER THE REMOVAL CAN HAPPEN, and at the end we can remove, in the same time, more "lactate" if we have low viscosity.

This fact is confirmed by every type of investigation with top African runners, who are able to run long distances AT VERY MUCH HIGHER HR THAN OTHER ATHLETES. This means that, when for example the "official" parameters of LT are about 4 mml, and for the obsolete Aerobic Threshold (That really doesn't exist) are still considered around 2 mml (this is the level of lactate Caucasic athletes normally use for running a full Marathon, if well trained), top Kenyans can run a HM around 6 mml and a full Marathon around 3 mml, since they have the ability to remove lactate very fast from their muscles.

But to run at higher level of lactate means also to have more energy at disposal for running faster. So, the main problem, when we speak about Marathon, is that athletes can't run faster than about 2 mml, because are not able to maintain a "steady state" with a correct balance between how much lactate produce, and how much are able to remove.

Of course, if you can remove more lactate, you can run faster, and this is something due to LESS VISCOSITY, that is exactly the opposite of what happens taking EPO.

You can say these are specualations only. It's true, because at the moment there are not scientific researches with this category of athletes, in this direction.

But at the same time I tell you that are speculations also the "ideas" that, for this category of athletes, EPO can give some advantage, because FOR THIS CATEGORY there are not scientific researches, IN ANY DIRECTION.

The fact some strong athletes had good results taking EPO is not a proof, also if they improved their performances, because this improvement came after a big improvement in the quantity and the intensity of their training, so the DIRECT responsible of these improvement is TRAINING.

You can argue that taking EPO has the main effect in the possibility to train more, increasing the recovery : but also this is a consideration without any base, because there is not any evidence by brough cross-examination (in this case, what the athletes could do IF ACCEPTED TO TRAIN WITH THE SAME VOLUME AND INTENSITY WITHOUT ANY DOPING).

On the other side, I have several athletes who were able to better some WR without using anything, also legal. You can suppose these athletes could run faster using EPO, but this is a speculation without any proof, exactly like my idea that also doped athletes could reach the same (or better) results using proper training only.

Don't forget that ALL THE STUDIES carried out till now are with population NOT BELONGING TO THE VERY STRICT CLASS OF TOP RUNNERS.

If WADA wants to study the real effects of altitude and doping with top African, there is only one way : TO STUDY TOP AFRICAN DURING THEIR TRAINING IN ALTITUDE, something never happened till now.

I strongly think WADA doesn't have any idea about the effects of training.

What I have to think about the "competence, knowledge and specific preparation" of an organism which in 2013 supported economically a research made in Glasgow, for investigating the effects of EPO comparing them in Scottish and Kenyan youg athletes, when the subjects of the research were : 19 boys from Scotland with PB (average) in 3000m of 11'08" (after one month of EPO the average became 10'30", and after other 3 weeks without EPO 10'46"), and 15 Kenyan boys with PB (average) of 9'20", becoming 8'55" after ome month of EPO, and coming back to 9'02" after other 3 weeks clean ?

Only some absolutely not involved in any sport of endurance can think that there are analogies among these boys and the "class" of top athletes.

Boys running 11' in Scotland, or 9'20" in Kenya, are not athletes (no talent at all) and don't have any training. Not only, but in the research there are no data about the training of these boys : how many times per week, which type of methodology, which training plan.

SO, NO INTEREST AND CARE ABOUT TRAINING AND ITS EFFECTS.

That's the reason because I'm not confident in any "official" physiological research, including the data used for the Biological Passports, till when there is not a collection of SPECIFIC DATA FOR THESE SPECIFIC ATHLETES IN THIS SPECIFIC CONDITION.

And, if a when this research can start, I assure you that we can find very unexpected data (for sceintists of antidoping, and Letsun posters....), of course unexpected for all that people never working with top African athletes, but well known by who, like me, works with them from many, many years.

Mr. Canova,

I dont' know whether you've had time or interest to read my latest post on this thread, but after connecting some dots I've had some second thoughts on some of my earlier views.

Rereading the published data on the abstract of the 2013 Glasgow-Wondimu study, I couldn't but come to conclusion that it at least raises questions as there is this unexplained discrepancy between the Hct responses (+19.4 % vs. +8.4 %) between the groups in relation to their performance improvements (5.7 % vs. 4.5 %).

Even the authors conclude with no explanation that "blood parameters did not change as much in the Kenyan athletes as in the Scottish athletes" but that "the relative improvements in running performance post-recombinant human erythropoietin administration (~5%) and four weeks post-administration (~3%) were similar". Strange.

I am not claiming that I share your every view on human physiology or EPO and Kenyans, but I find it very troubling that respected publications such as Runner's World and people like Ed Caesar ("Two Hours") accepted the study too easily as "definite proof" that EPO works on elite Kenyans and that Renato Canova is wrong when 1) the study is clearly conducted on recreational runners and 2) the data is - if not suspicious - at least in need for an explanation.

Your argument is that the best trained East Africans will not benefit from EPO due to a higher blood viscosity which interferes with their ability to clear blood lactate.

But you're not discussing the fact that a higher O2 uptake will improve the energy output while producing the same levels of blood lactate. With more O2, the muscle can process more overall lactate, and less ends up in the blood. You claim that EPO doesn't have the effect of removing the products of fatigue, but that's only true in that it doesn't remove the effects of fatigue from blood. It allows the muscles to process more of those byproducts before they get into the blood.

Blood viscosity's change on blood lactate clearance doesn't matter when an athlete runs 3:10/km at 2mmol clean, and then 3:05/km at 2mmol doped; they are able to produce more energy at that blood[i/] lactate because their O2 uptake allows the muscle to produce AND process lactate, so it doesn't end up in the blood.

Even if, as you say, their lactate threshold would go down because of the higher viscosity (and the increased difficulty to clear blood lactate), that is a minimal effect compared to the increased energy output being produced. With performance improvements (albeit in non elite athletes) in the 10% range, even the fraction of that which a maximally trained athlete would get from increased HGB outweigh the impeded clearance at steady states of of 2,4, or 8 mmols of lactate caused by increased viscosity. Even more, this review claims that EPO allows the cardiac output to maintain itself despite the increased viscosity. The increased viscosity doesn't matter.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20617487

With a further explanation here:

That it is blood pressure, not the abilities of the heart that caused the effect, it is not an effect dependent on training status; elite athletes could still receive the increase in blood pressure that allows that pulminary output to accommodate the higher blood viscosity.

Full data for that claim is available on page 224

(That paper also does well to explain that there are benefits to EPO beyond carrying capacity. Although, like you point out, some are in contention.)

I know you've published your own research on hematocrit levels of elite runners, and it would be great if you can share specific data as it relates to blood viscosity.

This paper

says that

. And given that well trained east african runners have a much lower hematocrit to start, the increase in viscosity is less at lower levels (see the chart linked.)

All in all, the body compensates for the increased viscosity. What you claim to be a negative effect that outweighs the benefits is not apparent. Moreover, we have seen athletes compete successfully at high levels of HCT (55%+), there is anecdotal evidence to show that the increased viscosity is not a large detriment, and that the benefits have outweigh any negatives.

You will always be correct in saying that there are no studies on elite runners. But we can isolate where you claim they have reached their maximum adaptations, and discuss those. Like where you claim elite athletes have reached an optimal hct/viscosity balance, and more hct will disrupt that negatively. Well, it seems that more hct can be accommodated with stronger circulation, an effect of EPO. We could have the same discussion over things like muscle tone and efficiency, mechanics, or any other factor. But just because there hasn't been a formal study doesn't mean it can't be addressed.

Clerk,

I appreciate your input on this thread, and I'll answer in this lengthy post. I am a non-native English speaker, so there could've seen some idiosyncratic ways I've expressed my views, but my reading is that there isn't necessarily a lot of disagreement at all.

I am very aware that there are many important trainable factors for endurance performance besides much touted Vo2MAX (which for most people peaks relatively quickly after a few years of intensive training). These trainable variables include running economy and lactate threshold etc.

The reason for my obsession with this particular parameter is that it is hypothesized to be the main pathway by which EPO elevates performance. There may be others, and I've brought up even in this thread some other minor EPO-mechanisms that have shown up somewhere in the literature.

I share your opinion that for an individual athlete one percent improvement is noticeable, but for several generations of runners, 3-4 percent improvement is not that much if they have an access to this miracle method (blood doping) by which you could theoretically gain 3.5-5.3 percent improvement with a Hb increase of less than 10 percent. During each passing decade there has also been additional contributing factors to increase speed. For instance, it is said that synthetic track alone is 1-2 seconds faster for every lap than non-synthetic one, thus there you'd have 25-50 second (~1.5-3.0 %) improvement in 10k time from this source alone (I haven't seen any actual data on the track speed issue, so maybe the boost is overstated, but you get the point).

On the linear issue, there is that small word ”almost” in my sentence. I am not making the point that the improvement is linear ad infinitum with elevated Hb. But it is somewhat logical that if you improve your speed by 3.5 % with 5 % elevation in hemoglobin, it is likely that at least you could make almost the same improvement with next one, two or even three 5 % elevations. One often cited EPO-study by Lundby et al (2008) concluded that cardiac output (Q) wasn't impacted at all (actually slightly elevated 25.0 -> 25.2 l/min) when hemoglobin concentration was increased from 14.1 to 15.8 via EPO.

My reading of your latest post on viscocity tells me that there actually is no disagreement there. My understanding that in vivo – viscocity is very difficult to measure particularly during exercise. Even a 1987 Swedish blood doping study concluded that participants Vo2MAX was elevated linearly despite 40 % increase in in vitro - viscocity so they concluded that the value was almost meaningless.

As you point out, anecdotal evidence also tells that there is no fall in performance in elite athletes with very high hemoglobin (Hct) concentrations as it is a well documented fact that some cyclists (Pantani) and XC-skiers (Smirnov) went close or above Hb 20 g/dl (Hct ~60) with apparently no fall in performance caused by impaired circulation. Whether they were at the flat mountain tops of oxygen delivery curve or what was their EPO-edge in the first place is another issue.

But if you share my opinion that the oxygen delivery limit isn't reached with hematocrits 45, 50 or even 55, then why has there been so little improvement in Vo2MAX and running speed since the introduction of EPO if even a few percentage points elevation seems to elevate the performance by a few percentages (according to the literature)? Even if the return would be diminishing with additional red blood cells, the speed increase could easily be at least closer to 10 percent with Hct increased from 40-45 to 55-60.

To summarise again. My main tenet on which I am still going to vouch is this – I am not arguing that there is absolutely no benefit for elite athletes to use EPO, but for whatever reason, you can not translate the 3-6 % speed increases in performance noticed in modestly trained subjects to elite athletes. I don't know what the mechanism is, whether it is lower saturation, whether it is that oxygen (blood) flow is impaired, or that their muscles can't utilize the extra oxygen or that the oxygen isn't released from the erythrocytes normally (left shift in the oxygen-hemoglobin dissociation curve).

Here is interesting anecdotal story on the edge and non-edge that EPO gives.

According to team of Scandinavian blood doping researchers, half of the medals of FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2001 endurance events went to participants not blood doping. They came to this conclusions after sophisticated hematological research with some very specific variables (reticulocyte hemoglobin, free hemoglobin concentration, erythrocyte distribution width, hemoglobin content distribution width etc). This is quite an achievement for these participants should their opponents be gaining 5 percent edge with EPO. On the other hand, half of the people in the podium were blood dopers (ie. had ”highly abnormal” values). The prevalence that high hints that blood doping does give an advantage (they had also a grey-area of ”abnormal” but for one reason or another there were none at the top three in any of the events).

In their research, there were relatively little blood dopers in participants not in the top 10. Does EPO give edge? Most likely. Unbeatable? Not necessarily.

This is not an answer, but the first post of a full argument where I try to explain my doubts, and the origins of my doubts.

Every research about methodology or doping (not regarding medical risks, but about the effect of enhancing performances) must be done with a homogeneous “class” of subjects.

When we speak about “elite athletes”, we need to decide what “elite” means. But, if we want to investigate the effects of doping and methodology on the top performances, we need to reduce the group including only athletes who can have analogies in their qualities, in other words the talent at the base of their results.

For example, we can analyze the top 50 athletes all-time in every event, and see how the performances are distributed through the years, for understanding the connection between doping and methodology.

In the next table, it’s possible to see the performance of the 50th athlete all-time, in every Olympic event, and the distribution of the performances in top 50 distributed per periods :

a) Before 1991 (all performances at the end of 1990)

b) Between 1991 and 2000

c) Between 2001 and 2010

d) Between 2011 till the end of 2015

This analysis regards, at the moment, male athletes only.

100m : 9”93 (1 - 16 - 16 - 17)

200m : 19”97 (9 - 13 - 10 - 18)

400m : 44”38 (12 – 20 – 7 – 11)

800m : 1’43”30 (8 - 15 - 16 - 11)

1500m : 3’30”77 (6 - 10 - 17 - 17)

5000m : 12’55”52 (0 - 12 - 26 - 12)

10000m : 26’59”81 (0 - 8 - 22 - 20)

Steeple : 8’08”14 (6 - 15 - 15 - 14)

HM : 59:26 (0 - 2 - 16 - 32)

Marathon : 2:05:42 (0 - 0 - 13 - 37)

110m hs : 13”17 (5 - 16 - 12 - 17)

400m hs : 48”05 (7 - 17 - 17 - 9)

HJ : 2.36 (22 – 13 - 9 - 12) (56 athletes at 2.36)

PV : 5.87 (7 - 23 - 10 - 10)

LJ : 8.40 (10 - 19 - 15 - 11) (55 athletes at 8.40)

TJ : 17.57 (15 - 12 - 16 - 7)

SP : 21.62 (25 - 5 - 14 - 6)

DT : 68.33 (25 - 7 - 14 - 4)

HT : 81.35 (15 - 17 - 16 - 2)

JT : 86.80 (------- 25 - 13 - 12)

About Javelin, we couldn’t consider any performance before 1990, since in 1989 IAAF change the rules regarding the javelin itself. So, the first number is referred to the period 1991-2000.

From this analysis, we can understand something about doping, and the connection between doping and training methodology. For example, in throwing events we can see that 50% of the performances belong to a period before 1990. IAAF started to have a more serious antidoping, regarding anabolic steroids, from Olympic 1988, with the case of Ben Johnson. Till that period, for throwers, the most part of jumpers and, generally, for all the events based on muscle strength, the assumption of anabolic steroids was part of training, and coaches and doctors worked, often, together. When coaches understood it was no longer possible to use anabolic steroids without risk of being caught, they were not able to change their training methodology, and continued to use the same training system, without pharmacological and illegal supports. Of course, this type of training didn’t work at the same way, and the subsequent period showed a great decrease in all the performances, before starting to grow again because something different was used in the training methodology, in any case without never reaching again the level of the antecedent period.

Now, we can to analyze the data of middle and long distances events.

We can see how, for 800 and 1500m, the density of runners achieving “elite” results is almost the same, for the period 1991-2000 (when there was the boom of EPO, still not detectable), and 2001-2010. But interesting is to see how many athletes were able to go in top 50 all time during the last 5 years (which is only 50% of the previous considered periods), mainly in 1500m, in spite of the new Biological Passport, in force from 2009.

Also events as 10000m, run very few times, can show some increase in top performances.

It’s clear that 10000m are more connected with the situation of HM and Marathon, which exploded in the last period : 37 athletes in top 50 all-time in Marathon achieved their result during the last 5 years.

Other important fact is that, at the level of top 50 sprinters, we find a 40% who had some problem with antidoping, showing that is normal and widespread costume for athletes in these events to look at some external support (legal or illegal many times depends on casual factors).

The lower percentage of athletes inside the limits of top 50 all-time caught for doping is in long distances, specifically marathon.

This fact can produce some question :

1) Why, among top athletes (who have more medical assistance, both from their management or their Federation, and more money to use compared with weaker athletes), sprinters, jumpers and throwers are more frequently caught than top athletes in long distances ? We can’t suppose Kenyan and Ethiopian athletes have more opportunities to “cover” in scientific way their doping, than the opportunities of top athletes in other events, many times supported by their Federation.

2) About Kenyans and Ethiopians, somebody could argue the problem is the lack of antidoping tests in the Country. This is not true : there are NOT blood tests, but there are a lot of antidoping tests controlling urine, and ONLY INSIDE THE URINE IT’S POSSIBLE TO FIND EPO, if used. In fact, Rita Jeptoo, Mathew Kisorio and Wilson Erupe were DQ for failing OOC tests carried out in Kenya.

3) Opposite to what happened with throwers (they removed heavy doping from their training plan, and the performances dramatically decreased, since when coaches were not able to change training methodology), performances in long distances continue to increase at esponential speed, in spite of the fact that, from 2001, it's possible to detect directly in the urines EPO and similar pharmacs.

How can we explain this kind of trend ?

Renato Canova wrote:

How can we explain this kind of trend ?

I don't know for sure. Here is what I can speculate:

-The rise in varieties of EPO: Benedetto Roberti who brought down Ferrari said "Riders have recently told me that there are substances in use that can't be found by anti-doping tests. One is Erythropoietin Z by Retacrit, it's known as EPO Z. There's a Chinese EPO that has been released, I don't know its name but it can’t be found (in tests) and was definitely the queen of the Olympics. There's also AICAR, that is brought in from the East as a powder and is apparently a kind of genetic doping. In simple terms, it helps reset muscle fibres after huge efforts. It can't be found in anti-doping tests either." (There is now a test for AICAR). Others have reported 100+ varieties of EPO.

-EPO like substances, FG4592 for example.

- Better understandings of pharmacology. In the "Arms race" of cycling, where everyone had equal access to doping and logistics, the dominance certain riders and teams came down to how their doctor combined medications. EPO was not as effective as EPO and Testosterone for example. This is why drugs like Thyroid medications, blood thinners, and insulin are just as indicative of full-on blood doping. Those drugs don't enhance performance by themselves, but work to amplify the effect of the more traditional PEDs. (A lot of dopers nearly kill themselves diving this deep.)

(This is also why I don't believe that the Kenyan positives for non-epo substances mean they are not also taking EPO, as Kisorio admitted to doing himself)

- Compounding effects of long term use: We know that the effects of steroids to not "go away". While it is shown that the immediate effects of EPO (HGB, HCT, VO2max) do return back to normal, every runner is better able to return to previous levels of fitness than make new gains. We see that juniors are doping, and can speculate that some dopers have been doping for a long time. The old "tell" of a doper by suddenly increasing their performance level is not reliable, if that doper has been doping their whole career.

- Increasing accessibility to drugs. I don't like this argument, but I think it should be included. There are cheaper drugs, more financial resources to recruit runners, and more accessible medical services than before, where high-responders or super talented runners that may not have access to PEDs now do, and rise to the top.

In that way, then we agree. It is unreasonable to expect the gains seen in untrained athletes to be demonstrated by trained elites.

But I don't see how that means that elite athletes don't benefit at all.

I'm not sure why you say several generations, and make comparisons to the 60's. We're not talking about several generations when it comes to EPO. We're talking about 16 years from the pre-epo record to the current world record. A generation and a half. The 5000m record came down nearly 3% from 13:00 to 12:37. The 10000m record came down just over 3%. And they ran on synthetic tracks, had lightweight shoes, and ate well. Renato's post does well to demonstrate the effect on the population as well, not just the individual setting the record. (As for the continued high level performances in spite of controls like the BP, and EPO test, see my reply above.)

While it is correct to say that there are no scientific studies on elite athletes' training, with regard to blood data or use of EPO, you and Renato haven't given any reasons why we can't expect some of the performance benefits extent to elites. Which is why I am so frustrated with the assertion that fully trained, fully aerobically developed athlete absolutely cannot benefit from EPO.

wejo wrote:

We were talking today and I was saying I thought I had seen a thread saying EPO would help mid-distance runners more than long distance runners because they are competing closer to their max.

Does anyone remember the thread or the concept? Am I off base?

Also, I think there was something about how EPO would help cyclists more than 10,000m runners or vice versa. It obviously can help everyone but helps some more than others.

I've been searching around trying to find some posts on this but am coming up short.

That's not true pe se, EPO helps MD guys less in a race, but allows them to train more and recover quicker. I think EPO helps LD guys more in a race, but less in training because there is simply a limit to how much training you can do before returns start to diminish. Btw, sprinters also benefit from EPO similar to how MD guys do in terms increasing training volume and recovery.

Very valid criticism, so allow me to clarify.

I chose the 1960s as comparison for a valid reason, because old school - blood doping appeared in early 1970s. Both of the speed increase studies I've been referring to (Brien 1987 and Berglund 1987) were done with autologous blood transfusion on which the technology had been widely available everywhere. It is proven that blood transfusions were administered to athletes from early 1970s onwards in many countries such as Finland and even the more sophisticated high-glycerol freezing blood doping was used in Italy from 1979 onwards and in Soviet Union from roughly mid 1970s.

But if we reasonably assume that the method was never very prevalent nor hemoglobin levels systematically boosted too high to affect the seasonal bests too much, we should focus on the suspicious years from late 1980s to late 1990s when EPO emerged.

It is well established that at 5000m and 10000m events there is the sudden improvement in seasonal best times and world records in 1990s, particularly years 1996-1998 are interesting. This is even more interesting when 1980s were relatively flat in terms of time improvements. If one doesn't get into discussion about euphoria to break world record, publicity and prize money of certain events, three things should still be taken into account:

1) There is no EPO-related reason for perhaps the largest one season performance drops from 1998 to 1999 (5000m+ 10 s, 10000m +29 s) as first EPO-testing began in 2000 and only for anti-doping research purposes.

2) To avoid cherry picking individual years, by comparing the average of 1988-1990 seasonal bests to the average of 1996-1998, the improvements are -3.3 % (5000m) and -2.7 % (10000m), truly amazing figures in such a short period. But if you take look into composite of all six endurance olympic running events (800m-marathon), the improvement is more modest -1.7 %.

3) The EPO-related strikingly huge performance boost should also be available to everyone, thus it is somewhat odd that a large minority of the current European endurance running records by native folks are still from the pre-EPO era while honestly there are some exceptions (Spain, Germany, where all records are relatively recent).

It is typical for the human mind to reconstruct a narrative for black swan-events like this that most suites his own vision of the world, but we really can't know for sure what part technology, coaching know-how, pacemaking and WR bonus money played. 1.7 % improvement is still large and I've always considered it at least possible that EPO could've been a contributing factor, one could even reasonebly question how good the selection of those particular six events is of the real world boost of EPO.

I haven't given any arguments because I have never made that argument. Period.

On the chart that Mr. Canova made, I must emphasize that I look at his issue mostly through lenses of amateur historian, so I have very limited knowledge on training methods. Even while reading now and then research papers on the issue I don't know too deeply what is going on in the present doping R&D. I prefer to focus on my blood doping – manuscript I've been gathering a few years.

But this much I can answer to Mr. Canova.

I wouldn't be certain that almost undetectable blood doping is gone.

As I understand it, half-life of (synthetic) EPO in circulation is a few hours, so if it is administered intravenously, it can't be detected after some 12-24 hours post-injection. There has also been additional methods to stimulate the production of red blood cells such as cobalt chloride (apparently first positive case just a few days ago, Harald Wurm) and xenon breathing. I have very limited knowledge, but it is my impression that HIF1-Alfa and many other more high tech products can do the same.

But I do definitely agree with Mr. Canova in sense that regardless of what method can be used to increase the hemoglobin mass, the biological passport project creates limits on how much these techniques can be used. At least the good old wild west of blood doping with hematocrits excess of 60 are gone and perhaps the present is closer to the situation where the cumulative exercise know-how can show its full potential.

There has also been more and more information on why Kenyans are so good natural runners and interestingly this hasn't much to do with naturally high hemoglobin mass nor even with naturally high Vo2MAX (theories that have been around at least since 1968 México City Olympics).

It definitely would help to solve the High Hct-performance-Kenya case if WADA would sponsor a study on how much hematocrit elevation would increase performance of top Kenyan athletes. Most easily this could be done by collecting on double-blind basis the test data from voluntary participant athletes just when they are retiring as their last service to their sport and science. It wouldn't even be a disadvantage should the study take a few years to collect necessarily amount of data.

But as the case seems closed, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

This is half my post. I really don't understand what you are trying to say here, and want to clarify before I move o:

1) There is no EPO-related reason for perhaps the largest one season performance drops from 1998 to 1999 (5000m+ 10 s, 10000m +29 s) as first EPO-testing began in 2000 and only for anti-doping research purposes.

Are you saying there is no way EPO caused the performance drops, because there wasn't a test for it? How do those two connect? In fact, not having a test for EPO makes it incredibly easy to dope with EPO without fear of getting caught.

I'll post fully after the clarification, addressing some of the pea-hacking you do to lump 800-marathon times together, and individual European performer and performance changes (which even includes the past results of an athlete-turned-coach of a recently banned athlete. Exciting stuff...).

Clerk wrote:

Are you saying there is no way EPO caused the performance drops, because there wasn't a test for it? How do those two connect? In fact, not having a test for EPO makes it incredibly easy to dope with EPO without fear of getting caught.

Pardon me for my confusing choise of words.

Here is the bottom line of my confusing sentence. For one reason or another 5k and 10k performances improved (ie. times dropped) almost at straight line from 1990-1998 both in 5k (26 s) and 10k (55 s). Other four olympic events also improved, althought not so significantly. It can be reasonable assumed that EPO played at least a part in all of this, a claim I've never denied. In athletics, it was widely available and there was no nostart-rule nor even blood testing.

From season 1998 to 1999, the season best time worsened by 10s (5k) and 29 s (10k), both of which are one of the largest year-to-year setbacks in history and there seems not to be any EPO-testing related reason for this as there was no EPO-testing and interestingly other four events didn't worsen.

This is where I could get it all wrong, but one gets easily the (perhaps totally false and ridiculous) impression that 5k and 10k sucked all the best athletes, resources, money and publicity during that decade and once the records were shattered, the attempts just stopped, because the record was so difficult to improve anymore. It seems that marathon is the equivalent today, which takes all the best and the brightest runners.

Once again, this theory doesn't discount that EPO could've played (even a significant) role, but from physiological point of view, there is necessarily not any reason why the improvement should've been limited to just 5k and 10k (for instance, marathon had real trouble breaking the 2:06:50 of late 1980s, it is another matter whether there were serious attempts).

But feel free to enlighten me on the subject, as I get easily the impression that you know details better then me.

I understand your point now. I'm not sure why a decrease in performance level in 1999, a decrease independent of new controls for EPO which came later, means that EPO had nothing to do with the rise in the first place. 1999 certainly doesn't continue the trend seen throughout the 90s of improving performances, but the fact that 1999 doesn't continue the trend doesn't discount that EPO was the only new factor which could have given rise to the trend in the first place. (Even dopers get hurt or tired, run slowly in bad weather, prioritize differently, etc. It doesn't discount everything before that.)It sounds like we agree more than we disagree. It also sounds like you are moving away from your original statement:

when you now say

So to your previous post.

You're right. I conflated your argument with Renato's. My mistake. For everyone else arguing that point, my comment still stands.

I brought this up in my previous post, but I'm not sure the benefit of lumping together events like the 800m and marathon. I'm a little tired of looking at results (for below), so I am asking if you still have the data you used to make that calculation: What is the effect if you take the 1500m-Marathon? Or, what is the effect in the 800-3000 and 5000-marathon? I get that the 800 is a distance event, but it is disingenuous to understanding the benefits of EPO to weigh it the same as the more traditional distance/aerobically demanding events.

There are more exceptions than Spain and Germany. I took the national #1 5000m time by a native European of several nations, listed below. Only sub 13:30 available

National #1 by year

Germany

1988 13:15.5 Dieter Baumann GER

1989 13:18.6 Dieter Baumann GER

1990 13:29.2 Steffen Brand GER

1991 13:24.6 Dieter Baumann GER

1992 13:09.0 Dieter Baumann GER

1993 13:13.2 Stéphane Franke GER

1994 13:12.5 Dieter Baumann GER

1995 13:01.7 Dieter Baumann

1996 13:08.8 Dieter Baumann GER

1997 12:54.7 Dieter Baumann

1998 13:04.1 Dieter Baumann GER

1999 13:02.6 Dieter Baumann GER

2000 13:21.5 Jirka Arndt GER

2001

2002 13:07.4 Dieter Baumann GER

2003 13:15.1 Dieter Baumann GER

2004

2005

France

1988 13:17.5 Pascal Thiébaut

1989 13:25.8 Thierry Pantel FRA

1990 13:21.8 Thierry Pantel

1991 13:19.7 Pascal Thiébaut

1992 13:14.5 António Martins

1993 13:21.2 António Martins

1994 13:24.5 António Martins FRA

1995 13:20.2 Larbi Zéroual FRA

1996 - - -

1997 - - -

1998 13:26.6 Eric Dubus FRA

1999 = = =

2000

2001

2002 13:29.8 Loïc Letellier FRA

2003 13:23.7 Loïc Letellier FRA

2004

2005

Norway

1988 13:20.8 Lars Ove Strømø NOR

1989 13:19.8 Are Nakkim NOR

1990 13:20.7 Are Nakkim NOR

1991 13:29.6 John Halvorsen NOR

1992 - -

1993 - - -

1994 - - -

1995 - - -

1996 = = =

1997 - - -

1998

1999 13:22.6 Marius Bakken NOR

2000 13:11.3 Marius Bakken NOR

2001 13:09.2 Marius Bakken NOR

2002

2003

2004 13:06.4 Marius Bakken NOR

GBR

1988 13:21.6 Paul Davies-Hale GBR

1989 13:17.8 Jack Buckner GBR

1990 13:14.3 Gary Staines GBR

1991 13:13.0 Robert Denmark GBR

1992 13:10.2 Robert Denmark GBR

1993 13:16.5 Robert Denmark GBR

1994 13:22.4 Robert Denmark GBR

1995 13:13.8 Robert Denmark GBR

1996 13:17.5 John Nuttall GBR

1997 13:17.2 Keith Cullen GBR

1998 13:19.0 Jon Brown GBR

1999 13:23.1 Karl Keska GBR

2000 13:28.2 Kris Bowditch GBR

2001 13:24.4 Michael Openshaw GBR

2002 13:19.4 John Mayock GBR

2003

2004 13:23.0 John Mayock GBR

2005

Sweeden

1988 13:20.3 Johnny Danielsson SWE

1989 - -

1990 13:24.2 Johnny Danielsson SWE

1991 13:21.1 Johnny Danielsson SWE

1992 13:23.2 Johnny Danielsson SWE

1993 13:29.5 Johnny Danielsson

1994 - - -

1995 - - -

1996 = = =

1997 - - -

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003 13:23.2 Erik Sjöqvist SWE

Spain

1988 13:20.7 Abel Antón ESP

1989 13:20.9 Alejandro Gómez ESP

1990 13:23.1 Antonio Prieto ESP

1991 13:20.0 Martin Fiz ESP

1992 13:21.9 Abel Antón ESP

1993 13:17.5 Abel Antón ESP

1994 13:15.2 Abel Antón ESP

1995 13:13.6 Enrique Molina

1996 13:11.1 Enrique Molina ESP

1997 13:07.3 Enrique Molina ESP

1998 13:04.6 Alberto García ESP

1999 13:08.1 Alberto García ESP

2000 13:07.6 José Rios ESP

2001 13:02.5 Alberto García

2002 13:08.6 José Rios ESP

2003 13:20.5 Juan Carlos de la Ossa ESP

2004 13:15.4 José Manuel Martinez ESP

Italy

1988 13:16.1 Salvatore Antibo ITA

1989 13:14.3 Salvatore Antibo ITA

1990 13:05.6 Salvatore Antibo ITA

1991 13:10.1 Salvatore Antibo ITA

1992 13:10.1 Salvatore Antibo ITA

1993 13:06.8 Francesco Panetta ITA

1994 13:26.9 Umberto Pusterla ITA

1995 13:17.5 Gennaro Di Napoli ITA

1996 13:21.9 Gennaro Di Napoli ITA

1997 13:18.5 Gennaro Di Napoli ITA

1998 13:27.3 Simone Zanon ITA

1999 13:20.9 Giuliano Battocletti ITA

2000 13:22.0 Salvatore Vincenti ITA

2001 13:26.3 Daniele Caimmi ITA

2002 - - -

2003 13:29.2 Marco Mazza ITA

2004

2005

Portugal

1988 13:15.6 José Regalo POR

1989 13:16.9 Dionisio Castro POR

1990 13:13.6 Dionisio Castro POR

1991 13:17.3 Dionisio Castro POR

1992 13:20.0 Domingos Castro POR

1993 13:14.7 Domingos Castro POR

1994 13:17.3 Domingos Castro

1995 13:18.6 Paulo Guerra POR

1996 13:18.6 Paulo Guerra POR

1997 13:20.5 Domingos Castro POR

1998 13:02.9 António Pinto

1999 13:05.8 António Pinto POR

2000 13:18.6 Hélder Ornelas POR

2001 13:23.2 Hélder Ornelas POR

2002

2003

2004 13:19.2 Rui Silva POR

2005

IRL

1988 13:17.1 John Doherty IRL

1989 13:15.1 John Doherty IRL

Bologna 13:14.2 John Doherty IRL

1991 13:18.8 Frank O'Mara IRL

1992 13:16.7 Frank O'Mara IRL

1993 13:17.7 Frank O'Mara IRL

1994 13:26.7 Frank O'Mara

1995 13:13.9 Mark Carroll IRL

1996 13:29.6 Cormac Finnerty IRL

1997 13:14.1 Mark Carroll IRL

1998 13:03.9 Mark Carroll IRL

1999 07:30.4 Mark Carroll IRL

2000 13:09.6 Mark Carroll IRL

2001 13:08.3 Mark Carroll IRL

2002 - - -

2003 13:19.2 Cathal Lombard IRL

2004 13:12.7 Alistair Cragg IRL

Some notes: EPO test delivered in 2000. Italian doping investigations regarding Conconi, cyclists, in 1997. Dieter Bauman caught in 1999. I noticed that Ukraine also drew up suspicios results but wasn't recording them. PEDs illegal in France since 1967(I think). SVK national record holder Róbert Štefko (13:19, 1995) is coach of recently banned Lisa Nemec.

Conclusions: except for Norway and Sweeden, every country follows the same pattern. Several years at the 13:20 range, and then performances reaching down to 13:05 range. POR, ITA, ESP, GER, IRL all drop below 13:05, while GBR and FRA get to 13:10.

We still see improvements of 2-3%.

So. To your original #1 point from your first post, we can infer that the performance benefit from EPO is not over stated. Unless you are being a literalist, and expecting 5-7% from elites, but you have already said that you don't expect elites to get the same level of benefit as amateurs.

And to everyone else, the effect is even more pronounced with the East and North Africans. This post was just in response to Aragon's comment about Europeans.

So. After many posts, we still have no good reason to expect that elite runners don't benefit from EPO. Canova still hasn't shown why well trained Africans cannot benefit, and we can infer that the impact of EPO is not overstated.

Oh, and I got those from this website of season's bests:

http://www.apulanta.fi/matti/yu/yl/1991_Men.html

Just switch out the year in the URL;

http://www.apulanta.fi

is some band website...

A few things should be said of your carefully compiled dataset and your conclusions:

1) 2-3 % improvement would in the range of 16-24 seconds, but the improvements are even in the best case scenarios closer to the former as I will demonstrate here.

2) The improvement of France (best pre-EPO vs. best EPO) is actually only 3.2 seconds. Italy doesn't ”drop” to 13:05 as it already is there (NR 13:05.6, 1990). GBR is relatively flat, but the 1992 record is an improvement (4.1 s). Portugal seems to be in the 10-11 s range (1990 vs. 1998) as is Ireland (1990 vs. 1998) and Norway (2004 vs. 1989 = 13 s). Spain and Germany are clear exceptions with improvements in the range of 18-21 s. Summa summarum: the improvements are in range of 0.0-2.5 % with mean being closer to 10 s [ie. ~1.3 %].

3) Italy is confusing, because for one reason or another, even their most recent endurance records are from 1990 (Baldini's marathon record is from 2006). This is interesting, as their Ferrara lab delivered EPO to cyclists and XC-skiers from 1992-1993 onwards.

What could explain this 1.3 % [or 2-3 %] ? The decade was wild west of blood doping, so EPO was used. Also anabolic steroids were used, in Europe (Baumann) and elsewhere (Saidi-Sief).

Another good explanation could be spillover effect. As the world was faster, it could've helped Europeans to run faster as for various physiological and psychological reasons, it is easier to reach new heights in a group than alone. Here is a quote from an abstract of a 1971 research paper (which I haven't read in full): "The energy cost of overcoming air resistance in track running may be 7.5% of the total energy cost at middle distance speed and 13% at sprint speed. Running 1 m behind another runner virtually eliminated air resistance and reduced V̇O2 by 6.5% at middle distance speed." The real world impact is undetermined, but it is there.

I'll give you a very-very dated historical example. In 1978 eight of the ten top 10k times are from same night, European Championships in Prague where total of 10 runners ran sub 28 minutes and there were 4 national records (actually 5 because two Russian broke their national record).

I actually had collected my data from the Apulanta-link also (as a Finn I know that it is a Finnish music group). After going throught the data ealy 1990s, there are two interesting patterns that have more or less significance:

1) The widespread entry of Ethiopians and Kenyans into 5k and 10k. In 1990, at the top 20 there were only 2/20 (5k) and 3/20 (10k) whereas three years later the corresponding figures were 13/20 and 8/20.

2) The gap between the best and rest starts to widen. The spread between first and fifth illustrates my point. While the spread was for both 5k and 10k ~0.5-1.0 % in late 1980s, it doubled and tripled being 1.5-3.0 % in late 1990s, being stunning 51.69 seconds in 10k 1998. Same year, the gap between first two runners was 14½ seconds in 5k (1998).

I made a new calculation of the 1988-1990 vs. 1996-1998 averages, using this time the year list 5ths. The rationale being that the time of the 5th should be more free of the pacemaker/air resistance breaker - assisted euphoria to get the million dollar bonus money for WR while he still should have access to EPO and other substances. I replaced the 800m with flat 3000m even when this move apparently undermines my case:

1500 (-1.11 %)

3000 (-2.44 %)

5000 (-2.24 %)

10000 (-0.65 %)

Marathon (-0.77 %)

3000h (-1.38 %)

I wouldn't put too much weight on the low improvement of 10000m, because it has always been a rarely ran event. Why 3K is the most improved is a little mystery, but curiously the WR improvement was less, from 7:29.45 (1989) to 7:20.67 (1996), ie. only 1.95 %.

One interesting notion you could make is that the two worst improvements were events were Kenyans were already prevalent (steeplechase) or where they didn't enter that much in 1990s (marathon). Kenyans weren't totally absent from marathon (Lelei, Tanui) but nothing comparable to today.

I foresaw this criticism, and I'll save some time here. The moving average improvements 1988-1990 vs. 1996-1998 (800, 1500, 5000, 10000, Marathon, 3k steeple) are the following (-1.0 %, -1.6 %, -3.3 %, -2.8 %, -0.4 %, -1.4 %).

My claims are not necessarily that contradictory. I'll give you a more or less fictitious example: If an improvement has been 1.5 % of which EPO explains 1.0 % (ie. 2/3), I can say that the EPO has had a significant role in that particular improvement , but that the literature has a general tendency to overstate its effect (3.5-5.0 %).

The evidence available at this moment points to the direction that the beneficial effect of EPO on the non-anemic well-trained population is perhaps more modest than assumed usually, but still possible.

Clerk, in all your speculations you forget a very basic fact : the different talent of some athlete.

The first period of great improvement came with Haile. He ran 26'43" in 10000 in a very windy day, and later ran 26'22" practically without any rabbit (they helped him till 3200m only). I think there are no doubt Haile can be considered one of the top 3 runners all time.

In the same period, there was Daniel Komen. This guy was a "monster", probably the most talented ever, but was able to last few years only, because burnt by a crazy activity, in order to earn a lot of money in short time.

Stephen Cherono (Shaheen), who trained with him in 2000 before becoming a my athlete, told me about unbeliavable sessions, that nobody was able to do before, but also after, him.

And, later, Kenenisa. I coached Kenenisa for some months, during his attempt to come back for Marathon, last year, and I discovered many interesting things about him (real facts, not myths like the most part of article about him).

These "class" of phenomens are athletes born in very limited "edition", may be one every 10 years. That's the reason because, if we want to understand the trend of many events, we need to look not at the number one, but at the number 5 or 10, of sure athlete of very high level, but not kissed by talent like athletes able to change the history of athletics.

When we speak about Bolt, of Michael Johnson, or Bubka, or Edwin Moses, or Zelezny, or Jonathan Edwards, we can't consider them as valid statistical espression, because are outstanding athletes, with some particular talent that makes them different from the bests.

In the particular case of middle distances, when there are athletes like them, organizers have interest to try to better the WR, and the level of the competitions is different. So, the fact that, for example, the first 5 athletes in the Olympic final of 800m in London achieved their PB in that occasion, and never were able to improve after that competition, doesn't depend on different type or level of doping used for Olympics, but on the opportunities offered by the situation : Rudisha as "rabbit", no confusion in the race, maximal motivation and concentration, at the end a competition where the only goal of the athletes was "running fast", not thinking too much about tactics.

The same thing happened in all the events of middle and long distances.

Behind El Guerrouj, we can find the most part of athletes in top 30 all time, because the races were fast and well paced. The same for 10000m, all the best times behind Haile or Kenenisa, with "no space" for tactical situations.

Times can explain many things, but not all, and connecting everything with the idea of variations in doping system is absolutely wrong.

For example, I can tell you something about Italian runners.

How everybody knows, in Italy our CONI (Olympic Committee) asked to prof. Conconi to follow the best specialists of endurance of the Italian sport, during the period of the auto-transfusion.

This project started in 1979, and ended in 1985, when the practice was banned by the IAAF.

Italian athletes were not obliged to use this practice, so somebody used, somebody refused.

Among athletes using, we had in 1980 the steeple runners Scartezzini (8'12") and Gerbi (8'18", 6th in OG), the specialist of 1500 Fontanella (who bettered the NR running 3'35"), and the current Italian Technical Director, Massimo Magnani, running Marathon. About Magnani, he never ran so slowly like in that period, so after only one year refused to continue, and started to improve again.

In all the period, we had athletes like Alberto Cova and Gabriella Dorio, winning OG 1984, and Antibo, while athletes like Stefano Mei and Francesco Panetta Always refused to use any support.

In 1985, everybody quitted to use this practice. Some athlete was no more able to run at the same level, but many other (for example Antibo) had their best improvement while started to use systematically altitude training, replacing the auto-transfusion. Don't forget Antibo was 22 only in 1984, and, when he was practically the number one in the World (1990), he was 28, the best age for a specialist of long distance. So, I can honestly say that all the big victories of Italian runners during that period (Mei, Cova and Antibo on the podium at ECh 1986 in 10000m, Panetta WChampion in steeple in 1987 and ECh in 1990, Antibo EChampion in both 5000 and 10000 in 1990, Bordin Olympic Champion 1988 in Marathon, all the medals of Lambruschini in steeple, and the performances of the 800m runners at the beginning of '90 (Benvenuti and D'Urso) were achieved without using any doping, which in my opinion destroied the career of more athletes (don't forget the swimmer Franceschi and other top Italian in different sports of endurance) more than helping somebody to win medals.

Who was in the athletics world during all this time, well knew the differences of talent between an athlete and another.

You speak about the beginning of the "doping era". This era corresponds top the era of the systematic use of altitude training, and this is something we have to consider.

If you look at the variation of the considered period, where do you put, for example, the performance of David Moorcroft in 5000m (13'00"4), achivede in 1982 (before EPO era), and bettered by Mo Farah in 2010 only ?

How can you consider the 27'39" of Ron Clarke in 1965, when today (in full EPO era) the best Australian runs in 27'44" ?

How can you consider in long jump Beamon (8.90 in 1968), Powell (8.95) and Carl Lewis (8,91) in 1991, if not fruit of superior talent ?

Not true Renato. If that was true then Kenyan athletes would be less energy efficient, because lacate is part of the glycogen and glucose metabolism, and greater use of lactate mean a runner becomes depleted faster.

I believe Jack Daniels' evidence to be more accurate and very reliable as a current future predictor of performance. He stated many years ago that a marathon is run at about 80% of maximum oxygen uptake for both faster and slower runners, so the difference between a 2 hour marathon and a 3 hour marathon is according to his research, only about 1% variation.

What that means is that a 2.03 marathon runner is using a lot less energy to run the marathon distance. He can do this, not because of superior metabolism, but superior biomechanics.

Just look at the difference between fast and slow runners, the best Kenyan runners have much better elastic energy return. It is really so obvious. Why does everyone including you make the science of sport seem look like some mystical energy pathway mumbo jumbo?

Superior biomechanic is, of course, one of the factors, but to reduce everything to a biomechanical difference is not only reductive, but it's wrong.

Don't forget today all the athletes run full marathons using sources of energy they can take during the race (maltodextrines, for example), approaching a situation similar to cyclists. This means we have today at disposal of every athlete more fuel than in the past. This allows the top athletes to run using levels of lactate higher, that means higher speed.

In an athlete, the individual biomechanical level doesn't change too much during the career, especially when we speak about African athletes. In spite of this "not change", they are able to improve their times of several minutes, and this clarifies the fact that the most important improvement in Marathon is not connected with improvements in technical action.

Don't compare kenyans with other athletes, for decideing the role of a better biomechanics : compare any athlete with himself, and explain with your theory the fact they are able to improve a lot, during their career.

There is also another point : the possibility of intervening for changing the biomechanic technique is very difficult in the conditions of African athletes, while it's possible to change the internal physiology of top athletes, with different modulation of volume and intensity, in order to bring the athletes to a higher "volume of specific intensity".

I don't deny the importance of running technique, I deny the fact we can change this attitude in order to have great margin of improvement. Great improvements come from the evolution of training focusing at distance and speed, not at running technique, that instead is the main reason of the improvements in sprint events.

Renato may not believe EPO helps Kenyans but you just got owned, Jonny.

Renato, the issue of improving speed endurance is biomechanical. It is controlled by the brain. You have said yourself that eccentric muscle contractions to improve running ability running ability require training.

It is the extension of the technique that gives the extension of speed endurance that is central to your methodology. You don't conceptualize it thsi way, but that is what it is. It is controlled by motor neurons, which are fuelled by lactate which comes from glycogen storage in astrocytes which are fuel storage centers in the brain.

Improvements in metabolism are easy to obtain, They are not the reason for differences in ability. Any healthy runner can improve glycogen storage in muscle and brain. But what they do with it.... well they need to train like your athletes and maybe have a coach like you to achieve greatness as a runner.