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

physics defiant wrote:

1% or 8 seconds is a lifetime in 5000m terms. Nobody should be making even tiny potential gains sound trivial

Yes. And that's 4 weeks after only 4 weeks of rather small dosages, with Hct increases in the single digits. No comparison to e.g. Ramzi or Radcliffe with their over 20% increases.

yeah and mountaineers use EPO so they dont have to use supplemental oxygen....you know going up Everest 29,000ft high in altitude, but yeah rhEPO doesnt work...just a placebo, and these mountaineers are morons and just making their blood thicker and not getting any added performance.

now if you had read my magnum opus you would see that the sky is blue, and i told everyone that pre 1990s blue was a different shade of blue, and blue is still blue but not blue

casual obsever wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

1% or 8 seconds is a lifetime in 5000m terms. Nobody should be making even tiny potential gains sound trivial

Yes. And that's 4 weeks after only 4 weeks of rather small dosages, with Hct increases in the single digits. No comparison to e.g. Ramzi or Radcliffe with their over 20% increases.

Great point...and there's never been any studies done with those higher, more real use, dosages by dopers, or EPO combined with GH and/or androgens. The synergistic effects of EPO for aerobic capacity improvement and GH/androgens for recovery & strength could be potent.

rekrunner wrote:

You get that race-walking is not running, right? And Renato is a running coach talking about running events?

Even if there are similarities, there are some fundamental differences.

If the events are so similar, and it's just a question of VO2max & LT, what is the best marathon time of an elite walker? Or 10K? Or 1500m? How many cross-over between the two events?

The events are as similar as the three racehorse disciplines. In the end the effort levels are still virtually identical.

There is a practical limit to going flat out and still walking.

As far as I know, there has also been zero studies showing performance benefit with GH/androgens on endurance performance (of males) so the benefit is very anecdotal and the magnitude only speculative. Because poster boys of "clean" cycling such as Greg LeMond could succeed in the 1980's and everyone noticed some shift in speeds only in the 1990's the magnitude necessarily wasn't that huge.

Here is how the CIRC-report described the pre-rHuEPO methods when compared to the RBC hormone:

" 32 km including 7 km + 6 km + 5 km + 4 km + 3 km + 2 km at Marathon pace or faster (in the case of an athlete with the goal to run the full marathon at 3' per km (2:06:36), for example, 7 km at 3'02" + 6 km at 3' + 5 km at 2'58" + 4 km at 2'56" + 3 km at 2'54" + 2 km at max speed) alternated with 1 km of recovery run in 3'25" every time," This sounds quite intensive Renato as does this

"Sun, 9 : 25 km on hilly course in 1 h 31'40" (average 3'40")

Tue, 11 : 10 x 1200m (rec. 2') in : 3'23"6 - 3'26"1 - 3'23"1 - 3'24" - 3'24"1 - 3'23"4 - 3'26"3 - 3'25"4 - 3'21"6 - 3'21"4. After 6' rest, 600m in 1'22"3

Thu, 13 : 30 km in 1 h 40'24" (average 3'21"/km)

Sat, 15 : 5 x 600 (rec. 1' + 1'30" + 2' + 2'30") in : 1'33"2 - 1'33"4 - 1'28"5 - 1'27"6 - 1'24"1

Tue, 18 (afternoon) : 3 x 2000m (rec. 3') in 5'40"2 - 5'32"5 - 5'38"9

Rest 5' - 10 x 400m (rec. 1') in : 59"2 - 62"0 - 61"1 - 58"9 - 59"7 - 59"7 - 58"7 - 59"2 - 60" - 53"1

Thu, 20 : 1 h Fartlek (20 times 1'/1' + 20 times 30"/30") (18,840 km)

Thu, 27 : 5 x 1200m (rec. 2'45") in 3'15"2 - 3'15"1 - 3'12"3 - 3'14" - 3'13"1

Rest 6' - 5 x 600m (rec. 2'45") in 1'25"4 - 1'27"5 - 1'29"2 - 1'28"8 - 1'29"7

(legs very tired)

Sat, 29 : 1 h moderate + 8 km in 23'52"

Mon, 1.05 (last workout before Doha) : 10 x 400m (rec. 2'30") in :

55"3 - 54"3 - 55"5 - 54"2 - 54"3 - 54"9 - 55" - 55"1 - 54"2 - 53"1

Aragon wrote:

Here is how the CIRC-report described the pre-rHuEPO methods when compared to the RBC hormone:

Almost all whom the Commission interviewed, who were direct members of the cycling community, stated that the introduction of EPO into the peloton was a “game changer”. Taking it enabled an athlete to be competitive, particularly in the grand classification races.

Is that not enough damning real world evidence?

Subway Surfers wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Here is how the CIRC-report described the pre-rHuEPO methods when compared to the RBC hormone:

Is that not enough damning real world evidence?

Yeah..."game changer" doesn't sound like any one-percenter that's been suggested here.

Is this brand new information to you because the CIRC-report was published some three years ago, is freely and easily available and was referred to widely in the cycling-related media? Any sane person interested in PED use would spend their time reading this type of material instead of memorizing OFFSCOREs of some random Russians.

In any case the one percent was not only "suggested here" by rekrunner but was also an opinion of people such as Michael Ashenden and Randy Eichner. There is also reference in your walking thread about someone gaining large Hb mass increases with LHTL-technique so we should compare blood doping increases to that method and not to baseline as suggested by Jim Stray-Gundersen.

In any case, there is no contradiction, because as Tyler Hamilton suggests, the rHuEPO effect is larger during multiweek stage races so that is perhaps why pro cyclists noticed the larger difference. In any case, because bulk of the testimonials of the CIRC - report are made many by dopers themselves rationalizing their own use, the assessment that they had no alternative should be taken with a caution.

It is still interesting that "Mr. Clean" Christophe Bassons still won a stage of the 1999 Dauphine Libere against a peloton of dopers and Jonathan Vaughters who left the USPS team is convinced that his Credit Agricole team was almost 100 % clean when they won a team time trial at the 2001 Tour de France. In any case, French cyclists had strict inside testing programs that made PED use more difficult.

Aragon wrote:

It is still interesting that "Mr. Clean" Christophe Bassons still won a stage of the 1999 Dauphine Libere against a peloton of dopers and Jonathan Vaughters who left the USPS team is convinced that his Credit Agricole team was almost 100 % clean when they won a team time trial at the 2001 Tour de France. In any case, French cyclists had strict inside testing programs that made PED use more difficult.

CA had known dopers on their team 2000-2002

I LMAO when I heard this because c2004-2006 even the worst teams were doping their brains out and by that stage the unlimited excesses of 1996-2001 were over.

One known doper of CA team was also one Jonathan Vaughters, but I am not sure if there are any doping cases connected to the team during c:a 2001 via admissions, dubious doctors, Fuentes or other means and it is far from clear why the serious serial junkies even would've preferred a French team because of the stricter antidoping efforts of the country (of course some PED use continued in the country). Vaughters's opinion is expressed in award-winning book Ventoux by Jeremy Whittle (p. 180 of the 2018 paperback), an opinion that the author didn't contest:

When I was with Credit Agricole and we won the team time trial in the 2001 Tour, as far as I know, everyone on that team was clean. That was unbelievable feeling. We'd thought, "We're clean team, we're goin to get our butts kicked," so it was incredible. That was ten times more joyful than winning on the Ventoux.

Race walkers are mostly quite sub-elite as runners. It's not at all clear that physiologically race walking is similar to long distance running.

Here is some interesting discussion about Crédit Agrigole and hematocrits that took place around 2004. Not the most clear dialogue because Jonathan Vaughers ("Cyclevaughters") and Frankie Andreu ("FDREU") clearly weren't thinking that their instant-message conversation would end up as evidence of the SCA-hearings:

Cyclevaughters: once I went to CA and was that now [not] all the teams got 25 injections every day, i felt

really guity

hell, CA was ZERO

FDREU: you mean all the riders

Cyclevaughters: Credit Agricole

FDREU: it's crazy

Cyclevaughters: So, I realized lance was full of s**t when he'd say everyone was doing it.

...

Cyclevaughters: believe me, as carzy as it sounds - [Christophe] Moreau was on nothing. Hct of 39%

FDREU: when in 2000-2001

Cyclevaughters: so that's when you start thinking... hell, Kevin [Livingston] was telling that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42 % - yeah moreau in 2000-2001

Anyhow - whtever

This is a lot of hearsay even when I have no reason to believe that Vaughters would've intentionally lied to Andreu even if his information wasn't accurate. Particularly the allegation that Ullrich "never raced over 42 %" is interesting and if accurate raises at least some questions about the magnitude of the benefit that blood doping gives.

Jan Ullrich was a client of Eufemiano Fuentes and had donated blood into his clinic, the German has himself admitted that.

Why do you mix two different situations ?

The example of 7/6/5/4/3/2 km fast alternated with 1 kmat 85% of Marathon Pace is something clearly connected with the training for a Marathon, how I wrote and you too wrote in your post.

Instead, all the other training is from Ronald Kwemoi, before winning Doha in 7'28".

In all the preparation of Ronald, the only workout of real intensity is the last (1.05) of 10 x 400m.

All the other workouts are for AEROBIC POWER, and are not in the lactic area.

1200m at the average of 67" per lap is something at 2'47" - 2'48" per km, for an athlete who ran 27'33" at the end of the season, finishing the last 200m in 24"5.

On Tue 18, the training is typically aerobic : 3 x 2000m in 5'40" - 5'32" - 5'39" are for supporting the aerobic power, the same 10 x 400m around 1'.

If you want to look at the differences between this type of training, looking mainly at the development of the Aerobic Power, and the training of athletes using only high intensity, you can see what Asbel did at the beginning of the season 2016 (including a 1200m in 2'44"), or what athletes like Boulami were able to do for long periods before being caught for doping (for example, NEVER going on track for more volume than 5 km, with all lactic tests at very high speed, and NEVER any long run of regeneration and/or build-up of Aerobic Power).

Instead looking at the session on track, I suggest you to look at the session on the road :

Sun, 9 : 25 km on hilly course at average 3'40" (nothing of special, but in any case 25 km...)

Thu, 13 : 30 km in 1h40'24" at 3'21" average

Thu, 20 : 1 hr fartlek (20 times 1' fast/1' moderate + 20 times 30" fast/30" moderate) for 18,840 km at 3'11" average

Sat, 29 : 8 km in 23'52" at 2'59" average.

If you don't understand the difference, and which is the most important training of the period (and which is the phylosophy of training), and what is the SPECIFIC SESSION vs the FUNDAMENTAL SESSION, you are not able to understand the methodology of training middle and long distances. And, of course, you guve more importance to doping, because don't understand the effects of training.

85% of marathon pace? But these athletes are running under marathon pace, the 1km intervals are not slow enough to clear the lactic acid. So in my vernacular this is somewhat anaerobic.

A lot of Kwemoi's work is very intense, Daniels defines threshold as being what you can run constantly for about an hour, I don't think even Kwemoi is running aerobically in some of these runs.

Yeah...right, I've quoted & referenced from the CIRC-report in other doping threads only have your arrogant attitude scrutinize me for referencing some info from that report. Btw, if I recall correctly from some of your old posts over at "The Clinic" you were never that impressed with that report. ?

And "memorizing OFFSCORESs of some random Russians?" Please...I've referenced many times Shobukhova's 153 Off-score noted on her ABP over the time period when she won Chicago and ran the 2nd fastest marathon ever resulting in annulment of the win & time. Some random Russians? Too funny. ?

So what? Ashenden & Eichner provided their opinions....duly noted. And the paper from Malm et al states it may improve performance by up to 3%:

Initially, blood transfusion was used to enhance military aviation pilots’ work capacity to fly at high altitude during WWII, when pressurized cockpits were not used [21]. Later, submaximal [22] and maximal [23] running performance was shown to improve with blood transfusion. The discovery of erythropoietin (EPO) [24] simplified blood doping in sports, supplementing blood donation, storage and re-infusion. Similar performance enhancements of 6–12% could now be achieved by a simple recombinant human (rh) EPO injection [25–27]. In a review on blood doping published in 1989, Jones and Tunstall [28] describe increases in performance and VO2max ranging between 0% and 40%, depending on the subjects included and methods used for both testing and doping. From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [29–31]. This enhancement is equivalent to, for example, seven minutes faster winning time in the 90 km cross country ski race Vasaloppet, 20–30 seconds faster time in any given 5000 m run at world class level, and four minutes faster finishing time in a marathon race. In cycling, a 3% increase in performance translate to a more than two hour faster winning time in Tour de France 2014.

And don't forgot Chad's estimation of "4%" ?

I'm in the camp of the 3% -4% range with high dosages. I don't see where these dopers would waste their time with a "one-percenter" PED that they could easily achieve through altitude training. Way too many positives and ABP sanctions for hematological anomalies. Too many crazy performances where you have Ramzi winning double-gold at Helsinki with insane Off-scores of 157.8 & 148, and wiping out a world-class field at Beijing where he was glowing IC on CERA (and his 9 second improvement in one freaking year; 3:39 - 3:30/~4%, nonetheless).

And have you seen Birmingham 2016? (posted by our excellent researcher Subway). Kiprop doper smoking Iguider! (I say "Iguider" as in Morroco's 2nd fastest ever 15 man), and making the rest of the world-class field look like a bunch of sub-elites (they all couldn't be having a bad day now...could they? Lol).

One-percenter PED? Not buying it.

Aragon wrote:

This is a lot of hearsay

Yes - rekrunner will scold you for that. ;-)

But indeed interesting. Ullrich "never raced over 42 %" after 2000?

Why did he blood dope then? Was his normal Hct 36-38%?

(He was also iirc on amphetamines and testo and corticosteroids, and went into GDR's elite "sport" school at age 13.)

In any case, would be nice to hear what he did in training (noting the "never raced..."), and during his one and only TdF win (noting the "after 2000...").

Wouldn't it be lovely to see all the numbers from at least one great career doper?

Game Changer is the Buzzword wrote:

So what? Ashenden & Eichner provided their opinions....

If you have problem understanding the context of me mentioning Eichner and Ashenden, here it is. You insinuated that the "one percent" allegation was "proposed here" and I only pointed out that rekrunner isn't the only person having that opinion.

Game Changer is the Buzzword wrote:

I don't see where these dopers would waste their time with a "one-percenter" PED that they could easily achieve through altitude training...

Obviously you have no knowledge about the material because elevating total hemoglobin mass isn't easy and one should expect a lot of individual variation in response to hypoxia. Here is an interesting article about pro's and con's of different approaches to high altitude training with few diverging opinions:

The information for Ullrich's (alleged) hematocrit reading is Kevin Livingston, and it should be remembered that his knowledge about Ullrich ends in 2002 when the American ended his career altogether, and it isn't 100 % clear that Ullrich was a client of Fuentes before 2002/2003 when the German became associated with the physiologist Luigi Cecchini, who was an unpaid advisor to many patients of Eufemiano Fuentes (e.g. Tyler Hamilton).

There is some information about Telekom doping culture in memoirs (Riis, doctors) and in the Freiburg-doping report, but nothing that unusual has emerged as far as I can recall. As one interesting anecdote, Bjarne Riis admitted having at least tested transfusions in the late 1990's to the Danish commission researching the doping practices of particularly CSC team, whereas he makes no such a claim in his memoirs where he is alleged to have been quite open about his PED usage.