Everyone who is a professional athlete is on PEDs. It blows my mind how this forum still hasn't wrapped its head around this.
Everyone who is a professional athlete is on PEDs. It blows my mind how this forum still hasn't wrapped its head around this.
Not a dope wrote:
Rupp must have read this and made sure to slow down in the last quarter mile.
Not reliable wrote:
According to Cycling News Doping Forum, 2:10 is the limit of humans, and beyond that it is the Dope Zone.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=2006133#p2006133
Geez, funny line. Went over everyone's head here I bet.
And I'm a Ruppster fan.
I'm usually in the "all champions are dopers" camp. Doping undeniably works, and works well. You can talk to people that dope, and they will tell you it's remarkable.
But then, I started thinking about the pre-race conversation. How much focus was on the weather, the opening pace, etc, etc. There are a lot of variables at play here, outside of doping, that can influence a race.
And then during the race, even the focus on the pacers, or lack of competition was considered a huge dial that could impact performance.
When you have an event as long as the marathon, there are a lot of dials that can have a huge impact on performance. And it's impossible to get them all aligned to have a great performance.
Maybe, just maybe, we saw a clean athlete align those dials today in Berlin.
However, I still think if I had to bet my life, and there was some all-knowing god as the judge, I would bet that Kipchoge is on some kind of banned PED. That's how strongly my belief is in the power of PEDs.
Kimmeto - - maybe
Kipchoge - - no way.
Probably unknowable. But -
Once difference between Kipchoge and past doping is the openness of the training. He's not part of a secretive group behind the Iron Curtain that only shows up to compete once every four years. People go to Kenya to train with his group. That's a lot of people in a position to stumble across something, including competitors with incentives to report anything they see.
It's not conclusive, and Armstrong got away with it for a long time. But openness counts for something.
power clean wrote:
Probably unknowable. But -
Once difference between Kipchoge and past doping is the openness of the training. He's not part of a secretive group behind the Iron Curtain that only shows up to compete once every four years. People go to Kenya to train with his group. That's a lot of people in a position to stumble across something, including competitors with incentives to report anything they see.
It's not conclusive, and Armstrong got away with it for a long time. But openness counts for something.
Also, doping test have gotten better. I.E a good sign of a doper is someone comes out of nowhere runs a crazy fast time than gets in the testing pool than never runs fast again. Kipchoge has been consistent. Which for me is a sign he is clean.
Bad Wigins wrote:
3% for doping overall, maybe. 3% for epo alone, no way.
EPO's first big effect was on the 1500 which had gone back above 3:30 for years after the banning of transfusions and introduction of OOC steroid testing. But your Morceli only lowered the WR by about 2 seconds or 1%. Your El Guerrouj added another second but that seemed to me to come from the steroid revival that occurred during his time.
EPO winning marathons makes even less sense. The whole point of EPO is to increase the blood's capacity to transport gases. That's applicable in events that push beyond that capacity, such as middle distance running, or XC skiing and cycling where relative rest periods allow short bursts of intense effort. Nobody ever gets remotely near their maximum gas transport rate in a marathon, no matter how elite. That maximum coincides with low intramuscular pH - in fact it depends on it as that pH increases the rate of gas exchange - and that low pH can't be maintained at a steady state for 2 hours. It's impossible.
The only way EPO makes sense for marathon doping is to counteract training-induced anemia. Some people may take it anyway, thinking it will work, and its effect over shorter distances may give them confidence. But I think the effective doping is a method of weight loss without inducing injury or weakness. Super-skinny people are more athletic than they used to be.
+1
Bad Wigins seems the only person thinking logically and having basic understanding in hematology.
to the gills.
Livstrong7 wrote:
@Canova
Right. Ped's are banned because they do the opposite of what we think they do - they impede performance. Perhaps WADA should have explained that. On the other hand it is a bit of a puzzle that cracking down on substances like EPO's has seen a noticeable falling off in times for middle and long distance events in recent years. An exception might be the marathon, where most of the top competitors come from countries notorious for inadequate testing and where "clean" athletes are lately being busted at up to a rate of 3 a week.
Add to this, running marathons minimizes 'In Competition testing,' maybe one or two marathons per year and maybe a hokey half or 10 miler as warm up.
No, epo does help with marathons, it helps you train all day, like cycling.
Renato Canova wrote:
And, about you, who are all these "well known" doped athletes in the marathon ? Do you know that, in the list of top 100 all time, the only athletes caught for doping were the maroccan Goumri (biological passport) who with 2:05:30 is number 60 all time, and Wilson Erupe Loyanai, who was banned after an OOC test of 4th Jan 2013, and when he was doped, 9 days later (13th Jan) ran his WORST HM in Houston (62:12), and bettered his PB AFTER the period of ban in 2016 (2:05:13 after the ban, when before the ban had 2:05:37) ?
If you go to see the all time list of 100m, you can find 38 athletes officially banned for doping (some for only 3 months, some for 4 years).
And the fact that some of the best middle distance runners, such as Asbel Kiprop and Kipyegon Bett, were tested positive (like Ruth Jebet, for example), means that the antidoping now works, and the official of the Kenyan antidoping are motivated to catch the cheaters, also for cleaning their image looking at the new lab authorized by WADA.
So, where are all these well known doped athletes among the bests in Marathon ?
Are you implying only those marathoners testing positive for EPO are the only ones using dope, i.e. a 100% detection rate?
Eliud Kipchoge cannot be certified clean with crap arguments, oh i feel he's honest, but he's much better than everyone else, clean or dirty.
EK to me is the real deal, as was Bolt, as was El G, because i think they would win with everyone being clean,
but i'm not saying any one of them is clean.
as far as Canova goes, he says, we have proof that testing is working, well, they only started testing properly recently, that means that many violators from the past were not caught. and ethopia and s.africa have yet to come under the gun properly...
the idea that EPO does not help in training, recovery flies in the face of the findings of the tour de france, victor conte, and literally every person that has testified toward EPO that used it the top.
again, you have to have experience with EPO directly to say anything, because the studies are usually done by non-experts, with an agenda.
So I have some comments on the potential benefits of epo for marathoners.
Whether or not it can help in the marathon is not the question. That altitude training helps in the marathon is well accepted. If living/training at altitude helps, then it it very likely that epo can also help, as a major effect of altitude is to cause the release of epo naturally to compensate for the lower oxygen concentration.
However, the hemoglobin level is not just a matter of the higher the better. There is an optimal hemoglobin for each runner. Raising the level above optimal would likely to be detrimental to performance.
The important question is whether the hemoglobin level can be optimized in a marathoner only by altitude/training or if taking exogenous epo can improve performance beyond this.
This isn’t a question that I (or most of the other posters here) can answer with any authority. Renato Canova gives a very good argument that optimization can occur naturally. Again, although I have a good background in physiology, I do not have the expertise to really critically evaluate this claim.
also, this . . . wrote:
power clean wrote:
Probably unknowable. But -
Once difference between Kipchoge and past doping is the openness of the training. He's not part of a secretive group behind the Iron Curtain that only shows up to compete once every four years. People go to Kenya to train with his group. That's a lot of people in a position to stumble across something, including competitors with incentives to report anything they see.
It's not conclusive, and Armstrong got away with it for a long time. But openness counts for something.
Also, doping test have gotten better. I.E a good sign of a doper is someone comes out of nowhere runs a crazy fast time than gets in the testing pool than never runs fast again. Kipchoge has been consistent. Which for me is a sign he is clean.
It's not about the science in many cases. With some countries the "governing bodies" (or certain people within those organizations) are colluding / conspiring with the athletes so that they do not test positive. Think of the countless ways in which that could happen. Many people are highly incentivised to have the athletes not test positive for all kinds of different reasons.
Rio Olympic marathon winner Jemima Sumgong of Kenya tested positive for EPO last year.
No way that Rio Olympic marathon winner Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya uses drugs.
TheOhioState wrote:
Rio Olympic marathon winner Jemima Sumgong of Kenya tested positive for EPO last year.
No way that Rio Olympic marathon winner Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya uses drugs.
They tested both winners. One tested positive the other negative.
Sand Dunes wrote:
TheOhioState wrote:
Rio Olympic marathon winner Jemima Sumgong of Kenya tested positive for EPO last year.
No way that Rio Olympic marathon winner Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya uses drugs.
They tested both winners. One tested positive the other negative.
Yep, and Sumgong tested clean in Rio.
Lance Armstrong did pretty well with testing during his 7 victory years.
Are you implying only those marathoners testing positive for EPO are the only ones using dope, i.e. a 100% detection rate?[/quote]
Impossible, since there would be no false negatives. No test can boast that.
TheOhioState wrote:
Sand Dunes wrote:
They tested both winners. One tested positive the other negative.
Yep, and Sumgong tested clean in Rio.
Lance Armstrong did pretty well with testing during his 7 victory years.
Lance competed in a era before they had good testing.
Lydiard is God wrote:
Are you implying only those marathoners testing positive for EPO are the only ones using dope, i.e. a 100% detection rate?
Impossible, since there would be no false negatives. No test can boast that.[/quote]
Of course not. What a clever question.