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

Yes I thought it was, my memory these days. So a 12:53 man was dirty, guess who he also coached? Bravo Khalid

:

Mindweak, I'm happy to see that for you a training system used for bettering World records, winning World Championships and pushing many athletes of different distances at the top of the world, "doesn't make any sense at all".

I supposed my explanation can be clear enough, also if my language is not perfect.

I say that, if we don't enhance the AEROBIC BASE (that we can also call Aerobic Power), we CAN'T MAKE EFFECTIVE FREQUENT LACTIC WORKOUTS. because they push down the Threshold.

And, for enhancing the Aerobic Power, we can use or blood manipulation, in order to enhance the ability to transport oxygen, in the case the athlete DOESN'T USE ANY TRAINING WITH THE SAME GOAL, or, like in the case of Ronald Kwemoi and Shaheen, AEROBIC TRAINING OF DURATION AT THE LEVEL OF THRESHOLD, in order to maintain, and also to enhance, the level of Aerobic Power.

What happens in a competition of 50 km walking has nothing to share with the reason of long and fast run, as support for lactic workouts, specific for short distances.

What I see, there are many people speaking about METHODOLOGY without understanding the connection between the different intensities, that move gradually the type of effort from aerobic to lactic, and the percentages of these two different type of training in a well mixed program for every distance.

Also, this thread seems now something about doping and cyclism only, and again people don't understand the TOTAL difference between the two disciplines. And, reading all the posts, we see a dog biting its tail, continuing to go in the same circle, without any solution.

The ability to discuss is not something very diffused in Letsrun, especially when some poster doesn't want to hear any info that can create some doubt to the theory that ALREADY he has in his mind.

Subway, try to understand what I write.

The percentage of 85% of Marathon pace (for an athlete running Marathon in 2:06'30" that is 3' per km) is 3'27", because the calculation is : 3' per km = 18" every 100m (this is 100% of speed), so 18" per km is 10%, and 27" is 15%. If the Marathon speed is 100%, it means that 85% is 3' + 27", and this is the speed we use for connecting the long tests at MP (or faster) during the specific workouts we use in the methodology of today (something in the past didn't happen).

And, at marathon pace, the production of lactic acid is under the threshold, SO WE DON'T NEED, AND DON'T WANT, TO CLEAR THE LACTIC ACID.

And HOW can you consider a marathon pace something of "anaerobic" ? I think you have to change your vernacular....

About the Threshold, you need to know which type of training you have to do for enhancing it. One thing is to define the LT, another thing is what we have to use for ENHANCING the LT, and when we have this goal, we have to do long tests (or long continuous run) starting UNDER the threshold, but finishing the full workout OVER the threshold.

For example, if we do for 5 times 3000m for some athlete having the LT at 2:50 (HM in 59:47) in 8:40 with 3:00 recovery, we are UNDER the threshold, and the workout is purely aerobic, but if we use 12 km with 1000m in 2:42 plus 2000m in 5:35 plus 3000m in 8:30 and we come back with 3000, 2000 and 1000m at the same speed, we start our training about 4mml and we finish at 7 or 8mml. This increase of INTERNAL LOAD is the reason because we can enhance the Threshold.

So, you have to understood the type of training for IMPROVING the physiological qualities.

Knowing the current limits of our body, if you want to be a top athletes, means to know the BASIC limits, that you have to overtake in order to improve, not to know the HIGHER limits, that you cant overtake, and you need to see at every training for its final goal.

This means that some LACTIC training can have the final goal to increase the AEROBIC POWER, and some ANAEROBIC ALACTIC TRAINING (for example, 4 sets of 4 times 60m at 98% of speed with short recovery and 6 minutes among every set) instead can have the effect to enhance the AEROBIC ABILITY of the FAST FIBERS, because the recover is for oxydative way.

Training is something that can change the physiology, if you know, but it seems that here everybody is a scientist of doping, and doesnt know anything about the real training.

Of course real training can change the physiology, but you're missing the point here of the current state of doping in athletics - have you been paying attention to these doping positives and ABP sanctions, and insane doping rings being broken up?

How about this recent doping ring in none other than Spain broken up this past summer, which contained an Ethiopian and Morrocan branch:

"In addition, a total of six properties were registered in the province of Zaragoza, Madrid and Valencia where illegal drugs such as growth hormone, insulin, testosterone and injectable vitamins were seized, as well as elements for the practice of autotransfusions."

It sounds like this one is involving blood doping as opposed to EPO to avoid a positive test. T & GH are nothing new but injectable vitamins seems kinda strange in conjunction with pharmaceuticals?

And here's another infamous Spanish doping ring busted up last year; "Operation Chamberi:"

What does that make four now in the last 13 yrs? (Operation's Puerto, Galgo, Skype & Chamberi)....Lol.

I'd like your opinion on the what heck is going on here? A rash of Kenyans busted for doping lately, Morrocan's still getting busted on a regular basis, doping rings broken up in Spain with Ethiopian & Morrocan branches, etc.

It seems like things are getting worse.

Time for lifetime bans and loss of all medals, titles & times from the previous several years?

I agree with you that we need a very much tougher penalties for doped athletes, because this increased number of doped goes to ruin the athletic image, with very bad effects : the loss of visibility, that brings to a decrease of the recruitment in any Country offering more opportunities to young people, and the loss of investments, that brings to less support of the activity, at both amateurial and professional level.

But this situation can't change my ideas about training and methodology.

First thing : don't forget I speak SPECIFICALLY about blood manipulation, not about any other kind of doping. I don't have any doubt that doping with steroids, GH, or some substance working on the nervous system, can produce advantages superior the possibility reachable with training only. The level of WR in throwing, jumping and all the women events connected with an higher level of muscle strength, clearly speak in this direction. And don't forget that the most part of athletes, positive for doping, in middle and long distances, were banned for steroids (nandrolone or similar), and the percentage of athletes banned for EPO is by far smaller than the percentage of athletes banned for other reasons.

Honestly, I'm not interested in all the speculations about EPO and blood doping. Maybe in some case athletes can have some advantage, I don't deny this possibility, but I refer this possibility to athletes not having big talent, not having the best possible training (in function of their potentiality), and not using with continuity the advantages of altitude.

When I write something, I explain HOW it's possible to reach the top (of course, with athletes of very great talent) with training only, and how one kind of training can support another type of training, and how training can modify physiological parameters (otherwise it is not possible to improve), and how exceptional talents can improve in very short time, something not possible to top athletes who are not the excellence of the elite.

There is not, and I think NEVER there will be in the future, the possibility to know IF, taking EPO, the best CLEAN athletes in the World could still improve. So said, there is no proof that doped athletes could not run the same times, win the same competitions, of doing also better, if, in clean way, thay could change their training in the right direction.

What I know is that it's possible to be at the ABSOLUTE TOP (WR) in clean way, and many of the WR holder were able to achieve the WR in clean way, while others achieved the same with doping. Personally, I have the example of Brahim Boulami and Shaheen, who practically ran the same time, the first using doping, the second in clean way. But, if you go to analyze their training, you can see a lot of differences in their training pjylosophy, that can explain WHY both the situations produced the same results, looking at differences of enviroment, culture, mentality and phylosophy.

So I like many here expressed doubts about the sudden bonanza of runners pumping out 2:04-2:06 times, which is eerily similar to the sudden explosion of sub 13 minutes runners in the mid 1990s. Your counter claim is that this is "proper training" and the new change is the advent of the 40km time trial, yet what you outline is a descending distance, increasing intensity hard fartlek session, which would suggest that if anybody did that session they would be comfortable with 2:03 pace, but right now there is only one man comfortable at that pace. So I'm wondering whether this session exists, if it does the athletes would need at least a couple weeks to recover. Are you claiming Kwemoi can run approximately 59:30 for a half? That is extremely impressive for a miler, that is what a 53 Hct can produce, so Hct does have benefit for performance after all.

About the possibility of Ronald in HM when he had the workouts I wrote, he could run under 1 hour, of course the problem could be the MENTAL adaptation.

This is not only an hypothesis : what Kejelcha did in Copenhagen is the demonstration that also for milers (don't forget he ran 3'32" 10 days before 59'14") there is the possibility to have a WIDE RANGE, of course if there is training in that direction.

Or you think Mo Farah, when ran 3'28"81, didn't use long and fast run ?

Why you don't ask Alberto how much long run, and how much fast, he always used with Mo, with Galen, and now with Sifan Hassan and with Yomif Kejelcha ?

And in all this, the level of Hct doesn't have any importance. I pointed out several times that everybody has an OPTIMAL INDIVIDUAL HCT, because this is an INDIVIDUAL parameter, and you can have athletes running the same times, one with 53 and another with 43 of Hct. And it's not true that, if the athlete with 43 uses some blood manipulation for enhancing his value to 50, after this he can run faster.

EVERYBODY HAS HIS OPTIMAL PERSONAL RANGE, and inside this range can run faster when his Hct is higher (but always inside his individual range). When he goes OVER his optimal range, his physiology is not able to use the increased ability to transport oxygen, because this creates other limiting factors, and the body goes out of balance.

Try to understand that the human machine works in a complexed way, and to look at few situations only is a big mistake.

An athlete can increase his performances when all his training can produce BALANCED advantages : if wants to look for one direction only, at first doesn't improve, and secondly becomes injured or sick in very short time.

And you continue to underrate the mental effects, and the tactical effects, on the performances.

In the explosion of athletes under 13' (not in 1990, but after 2000), the main reason was the speed of the races, that had fast pacers because there was every time the opportunity to attack the WR, with Haile or Komen before (but in those years times under 13' were not frequent), with Kenenisa later. Go to control the final results of the races producing the best performances, and you can see that always the winner was Bekele, always around 12'50", and automatically he was the best rabbit for all the other athletes. Put in your mind that running under 13' is not a performance of high level, if you do this arriving in the group, the performances doesn't have a big value.

I give you the example of the race in Saint Denis (6th July 2012) :

1- Dejen Gebremeskel in 12:46.81 PB

2- Hagos Gebriwhet in 12:47.53 PB

3- Isaiah Koech in 12:48.64 PB

4- Yanew Alamirew in 12:48.77 PB

5- Thomas Longosiwa in 12:49.04 PB

6- John Kipkoech in 12:49.50 PB

7- Tariku Bekele in 12:54.13

8- Eliud Kipchoge in 12:55.34

9- Kenenisa Bekele in 12:55.79

10- Edwin Soi in 12:55.99

11- Moses Masai in 12:59.21

Among all these athletes, the best performances of Gebremeskel before that race were 12:53.56 and 12:55.89, of Gebriwhet 12:58.99 (and after that race 12:54.70 and 12:55.73), of Isaiah Koech 12:57.63 (and the next year 12:53.19 indoor and 12:54.78), of Yanew Alamirew 13:00.46 (and after he was able running only 2 other times under 13'), of Thomas Longosiwa 12:51.95, of John Kipkoech 13:01.64 (and never ran under 13' again), while Tariku, Eliud, Kenenisa, Edwin were simply not in shape. So, do you think John Kipkoech was a top athlete ?

The best winning times in the history belong to the same athletes : Kenenisa Bekele, Daniel Komen, Haile Gebrselassie.

Do you know how many performances there are under 13' updated at today ? 346, by 97 different athletes.

Instead ALWAYS speaking of doping, maybe better if you start to change your idea about what is the talent, the real level of the performances, and start to analyze how many factors concur in a fast performance, because, every time I read something from the most part of posters, I see a lot of specific ignorance in these factors, because the focus is on doping only. Really ridiculous, and very naive.

Subway, where I wrote that everybody doing this type of sessions can run comfortable at 2:03 pace ? What I can say, is that everybody using that type of training, IN THE SAME PERCENTAGE COMPARED WITH HIS PB (that doesn't mean the SAME TIMES, but the same training phylosophy), can today run a marathon 2-3 minutes faster than with the old, traditional system.

So, the 2:07 of 30 years ago could become under 2:05, and an athlete of good (but not incredible) talent such as Sondre Moen clearly demonstrated this fact.

About marathon, together with the change of training (reducing volume of slow run, and increasing the volume of SPECIFIC speed sessions, with a combined decrease of total volume), the most important factor is the change of mentality.

Thirty or twenty years ago, we (coaches) were the limiting factor, under the mental point of view.

Still at the beginning of 2000, when the WR was still 2:06, we were very cautius speaking about the pace : if somebody wanted to go for 63:00 at HM, we preferred to advice him to run not faster than 64:00, fearing the famous "wall".

Today, every kenyan (or Ethiopian) runner, who, without any previous experience, joins a group in Iten, or Kaptagat, or Kapsabet, listen to the experiences of other runners, who already were able to run in 2:05 - 2:06. He knows that today is no more possible to win marathons coming from behind (like Gelindo Bordin in Boston 1990, when was number 19 at HM with 1 minute of gap from the leaders, or Orlando Pizzolato winning NY in 1984, when was number 32 at HM), but you need to be in the leading group IN ANY CASE, if you want to be competitive. And Eliud, with his 2:01:39 (but especially with his 60'33" for the second half), will produce a further jump of mentality for the next runners, something that in the past didn't happen when, for example, Steve Jones went for 61'33" the first half in 1985, that is like today going for the first half in one hour, and the coaches (myself included), instead starting from his aggressive mentality, considered him like a very bad example, underrating the possibility to run a full marathon faster than the 95% of the HM speed.

Believe me, if you are able to go INSIDE every performance, can find something very much more effective, and interesting, than to continue to be obsessed by doping. We have to fight doping, but not to overrate his effects, and this is the more powerful deterrent against it.

Why do you ask me to prove something, that is a clear evidence for who knows the personal data of top athletes ?

Do you think that when top athletes achieved their PB, the level of their Hct was the highest value they had in their life ?

The answer is : NO.

Example one : Gelindo Bordin won OG in Seoul 1988 (Marathon) with 12.9 Hb and 39.7 Hct, and was arguably in the best shape of his life. When won European Championships in Stuttgart (1986) his values were over 14, and 43.2.

Example two : Gennaro Di Napoli had usually Hct of 52 and Hb between 18.5 and 19 for all his career. During the period of his first National Record in 1988 (3'32"98 beating Sebastian Coe) he was under 50, with Hb of 18,1. Before the European Championships 1994 in Helsinki, he was at his highest level (19.1 and 52.8), and was not able to reach the final.

Example three : In 1999, I tested for 6 times many values of Christopher Koskei, coming from one year of little training and without competitions (8'48" in 1998). I published all his data in the Italian Technical Magazine of the Federation (Atletica Studi), and when he won WCh, in the best shape of the year, his Hct was 39.7, while at the beginning of the season, when he still was rebuilding his shape, was over 42.

I have many data of athletes that I coached (Italian, Kenyan, Ethiopian, Tanzanian, Ugandan, Chinese) and I can see the values comparing them with their shape at the moment. I think you have NO DATA at all for supporting ANY YOUR CONCLUSION.

So, who has to prove something ?

Then why are they banning dozens of athletes for ABP hematological anomalies? ?

Here's a high-profile example and one of many ABP hematological cases; Aslı Çakır Alptekin. Her London Gold, EC Gold & WIC Bronze from 2012 were all annulled for doping. According to Independent Commission (IC) report (page #253), 8 out of her 9 samples were considered abnormal prior to the Olympics. "The IC notes that the athlete’s haemoglobin was always high during periods of competition and on the eve of important sports events, including before the 2012 Olympic Games. Overall, the athlete’s ABP was considered to be a highly abnormal profile."

Her sample from March (2012) prior to her bronze at the WIC was 15.7 hgb (47.1 hct) A sample in June prior to her gold at the EC was 17.5 (52.5), and a sample in early July was 16.4 (49.2). The report doesn't indicated her baseline value nor the result of the sample taken on the eve of the Olympics. But the increase from Mar to the EC was a mild ~12% and she not only wins gold but sets a PB at the time. And at the Olympics she runs another PB in the semi's.

The report also states:

"The IAAF ABP expert panel rejected the athlete’s explanations regarding her abnormal ABP, which included an episode of hemorrhagic gastritis, the absence of menstruation for approximately five months, altitude training and the use of a hypoxic device, the use of medications and supplements, and potential analytical or pre-analytical issues."

So much for the altitude training excuse these dopers use regularly. Lol.

So, if "the level of Hct doesn't have any importance," it sure did here as Alptekin was banned for hematological anomalies indicative of blood manipulation and all her medals & titles flushed from 2012.

You. Show how higher numbers are detrimental and how. What you are doing it making it sound like lowering the numbers enhances performance.

Here is one item I'd be interested to hear the "official" version:

I think it is beyond any serious debate that 1990's was a wild west of "oxygen vector doping" or whatever term one wants to use and it was relatively easy and cheap to elevate Hct levels above 60 %. This situation changed little-by-little from 2001 onwards when blood doping became gradually more difficult with rHuEPO tests, OFFScores, ABPs etc at least limiting the most blatant excesses.

It is seemingly plausible to conclude that the mania to break 1500-10000m world records during the "wild" years is connected to this phenomenom of high Hct's, but what is the official explanation why marathon seasonal best times barely improved from the mid-1980's until late 1990's (1984-1988 average 2:07:36; 1996-2000 2:06:47), only 0.6 % which is possibly even less than one could've expected when compared to the progress rate of the earlier decades.

And if the answer has anything to do about athletes not focusing in the 1990's on marathon (financial incentives, "not cool" distance) or the records considered too unbreakable not worth giving the trouble, what is the difference why the same arguments couldn't explain the mediocrish track endurance times of today vs. those of the late 1990's?

Again you make confusion between cause and effect.

". What you are doing it making it sound like lowering the numbers enhances performance."

The values of athletes training in CLEAN way (almost bettering some WR), show that WHEN BECAUSE OF TRAINING THEY ENHANCE THEIR PERFORMANCESM, THEIR VALUES ARE LOWER THAN WHEN THEY ARE IN LITTLE OR NO SHAPE.

I look at training, not at the values of the athletes, and the values become EFFECT of training, under physiological point of view, while the effect of training that interests athletes and coaches is the improvement of their performances.

So, I don't work for enhancing Hct, but I don't work for lowering too. I work for improving the shape of the athletes, and sometimes, improving the shape, their Hct and their Hb go down.

For a clean athlete, this is the normal trend :

Out of training : higher level of Hb and Hct (for example, 16 and 47)

After a period of 3-4 months of FUNDAMENTAL training, with increase of volume, he can reach his LOWEST values when in good helath (in this case, 14.5 and 43)

During the SPECIFIC period, due to the increase of modulation in order to use in the best way the overcompensation, his value grow a little bit (15.2 and 45), not reaching in any case the same level he has when out of training.

These are the effects of training. I'm not sure that enhancing with some practice EXTERNAL of training, the values can have effects on training. So, training can change the values, but changed values can't change training, in spite of what people think about EPO (increasing volume of training and recovery, something depending on the motivation of the athletes only, when they have the patience and the continuity for achieving their maximal potential level of training, that can't be increased using some blood manipulation).

The natural variations for clean athletes are in the percentage of 10% as max difference, depending on factors as the volume of training, the intensity, the recovery, the altitude, and nothing in this range can be suspicious. In this case, already I explained that every athlete has a personal and individual OPTIMAL level of Hb and Hct, that is connected with a general balance of his body.

For example, in all the blood tests I had with the Chinese athletes, after a period of 50 days in altitude at 2400m for preparing the Asina Games 2014, the athletes able to improve dramatically their PB in competition had, when went back sea level, values LOWER than before going to altitude, when many other athletes had values higher (in some case very much more, for example from 37 till 42) but were not able to run near their best levels.

Instead, when we look at the Biological Passport, sometimes we find variations of 50% (for example, from 40 to 60) in cyclists, and of 30% in runners (from 40 to 52).

If an athlete has already values over 50, it means that his body is able to work in the best way when he trains and runs around this limit. If we use some procedure for enhancing his Hct to, for example, 56, he is not able to run faster, and also is not able to run FAST like already did, because this abnormal level produces some limiting factor in his body in some other direction.

We have athletes running at the level of WR in every event with values from 42 till 55 (men) and from 37 till 49 (women), and everybody has a common denominator : when they increase their shape and are in the best situation for some record, their values are LOWER than when are in medium shape.

This is a common trend, that every coach working in clean way well knows, and is the behavior of white caucasics like black africans, BECAUSE TRAINING WORKS IN THIS WAY.

Renato Canova wrote:

The best winning times in the history belong to the same athletes : Kenenisa Bekele, Daniel Komen, Haile Gebrselassie.

Do you know how many performances there are under 13' updated at today ? 346, by 97 different athletes.

Instead ALWAYS speaking of doping, maybe better if you start to change your idea about what is the talent, the real level of the performances, and start to analyze how many factors concur in a fast performance, because, every time I read something from the most part of posters, I see a lot of specific ignorance in these factors, because the focus is on doping only. Really ridiculous, and very naive.

The sport is dirty Renato. I know it, you know it, we all know it. The window of detection for epo is like 24 hours in small amounts. Hgh is still very hard to detect. Races with numerous sub 13 athletes started to emerge around 1996. Only five or six years earlier 13:10 was an elite mens winning time. The St. Denis 5,000m has been used by doping apologists on here numerous times to argue "this just proves 12:40s times are still possible," when that race was the Ethiopian Olympic trials, there were 6 vying for 3 spots, from a country which at that time had no domestic drug testing, especially for blood (still doesn't). What was amusing about this race is that the three Ethiopians could have run the Olympics at a pace by themselves and shared the medals between them, but somehow they looked jaded only weeks later. Oh that was because one of the biggest drugs companies in the world GlaxoSmithKline was doing the testing and London. Besides, when has someone failed a Diamond League drugs test? I have not heard of anyone failing an in competition DL test. Conte has repeatedly said DL testing is a joke and we know over 50% admit to doping and none are caught at DL meets.

Kejelcha is a 5k guy so I would assume he'd do some sort of weekly long run.

BTW, Lydiard (1978) has a full marathon time trial for elite runners a few weeks out from race day, so your claim that the new training revolution of the 40km time trial to explain the +4 mins being wiped off the marathon record doesn't seem to be a watertight explanation.

I certainly agree with the first part. Actually the 1960s saw a revolution in the event. Maybe roids, transfusions, pain killers and stimulants were a tough beat. Two interesting things: after the Berlin Wall came down the marathon in that city slowly became the premier race, fast and flat. The figures who dominated the wild west of the 1990s seemed to switched to the marathon around 2001 and began to dominate. I wonder why?

Subway Surfers wrote:

I certainly agree with the first part. Actually the 1960s saw a revolution in the event. Maybe roids, transfusions, pain killers and stimulants were a tough beat. Two interesting things: after the Berlin Wall came down the marathon in that city slowly became the premier race, fast and flat. The figures who dominated the wild west of the 1990s seemed to switched to the marathon around 2001 and began to dominate. I wonder why?

Or maybe different doping methods aren't the alfa and omega of all explanations, but fast endurance runs take place only with organised efforts with pacemakers etc. not worth the trouble when one can focus on other types of competition and when the outcome is far from certain. There clearly is no PED related explanation why 5000m and 10000m seasonal best times crashed from 1998 to 1999 (c:a 2 %) except loss of interest even to give it a try and the situation may not be that different now some 20 years later?

The crux of my post is that there are clearly trends on what the best of the best focus on and how much effort it is reasonable to put in in order to break the records and there is some similarity between the late 1990's of marathon and modern track.

Historically there have always been "eternal" records considered unbreakable such as the 49431 meters of cycling by Eddy Merckx and possiby even the sub-four-minute-mile when the 4:01 record from 1945 lasted for nine years until Bannister broke it with his scientific effort.

Aragon wrote:

There clearly is no PED related explanation why 5000m and 10000m seasonal best times crashed from 1998 to 1999 (c:a 2 %) except loss of interest even to give it a try and the situation may not be that different now some 20 years later?

Two years, that's scattering/coincidence/bad luck. Like we just had three years without a marathon world record, after three in four years.

On the other hand, the 5000 m record is from 2004. That's a whopping 14 years. As for unbreakable: why would one consider 12:37 unbreakable, after other athletes have run 12:39? That's less than a 0.3% difference.

Only in hindsight, it looks (almost) unbreakable, as even the best performer of this whole decade is still 6 seconds slower (while being "paced" for 4750 m or so, in a drastic contrast to the 12:37). Until 2017, it looked even worse, with the best time of this decade being 12:46.

Plus, this getting slower over 5000 m is quite different to your observation that the "marathon seasonal best times barely improved from the mid-1980's until late 1990's".