Was Paula Radcliffe the biggest genetic outlier in running history? Underappreciated on Letsrun

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

But it also leaves open the possibility that the very best runners, especially world record holders, are doped and just were not caught. And the women's marathon has their fair share of dopers - here's a list of confirmed dopers and their current standing on the top 100 all time fastest list:

(9) Shobukhova (RUS)

(15) Jeptoo (KEN)

(23) Wangui (KEN)

(26) Sun (CHN)

(31) Chepchirchir (KEN)

(52) Sumgong (KEN)

(68) Kirwa (KEN-BRN)

(74) Duliba (BLR)

(99) Hamera-Shmyrko (UKR)

These are just the confirmed dopers and doesn't include the ones who are highly suspicious (the other Kenyans & Russians on the list). And Sumgong & Kirwa were one-two on the podium at Rio.

At one point Shobukhova had the 2nd fastest time in the world only behind Radcliffe - her 2:18:20 is smoken (and will probably remain the Russian NR forever. Lol). She was using EPO & HGH and blew her ABP with very high anomalies. If she never get caught you would still probably suspect her of doping because she's Russian. So, Radcliffe runs a sizzling, unbelievable 3 minutes faster than a full-throttle Russian and you don't think she's suspicious one bit? (especially since some of her disclosed blood values are regarded by some as suspicious). And what about the seven other faster times than Shobukhova (all "East Africans" including the current WR holder) - they're not suspicious because they haven't tested positive?

And what about the two dopers on the podium at Rio? The only ones doping that day? Lizzie Lee certainly doesn't think so: ?

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not arguing that doping must be greater than we know; we know its likely extent. We know that confirmed positives are nowhere near the extent of doping.

None of the times you rely upon to make your claims can be assumed - let alone be proven - to be clean. Any performance at virtually any level can be doped.

Your "known" performances may be examples of what doping can achieve. You are unable to prove otherwise.

It is quite logical to argue that if doping is prevalent and has been so for many years, the entire field of athletic achievement has been lifted by the practice - and not simply by improved techniques, equipment and training. What is illogical is to argue that highly refined and skilled practises that have been part of sport for decades - as doping has, as much as have technique, equipment and training - have had no demonstrable effect on performance, while the latter undoubtedly have.

oxygen? wrote:

Thermodynamics or thermoregulation? Those are two different things.

The second law of thermodynamics: energy can’t be created or destroyed, only transferred. There is no energy created by blood doping. All the energy you need comes from your body’s energy stores. The other reactant you need is oxygen. Having more oxygen available allows you to sustain a higher output using oxidative phosphorylation without having to resort to lactate formation. Oxygen is the limiting reactant, you have plenty of sugar available and already stored , the question is how much oxygen you have available to burn it?

I don’t know why you are mentioning that only 40% of the energy is going to the actual muscular movement. The point is, with more oxygen available you will be able to convert more ADP to ATP at a time to power muscle contraction and all other needs of the body.

Lactate formation has everything to do with oxygen supply. With low oxygen supply, the tricarboxylic acid cycle will slow, pyruvate concentration will increase in the cytosol and will not be moved to the mitochondria to enter the tricarboxylic acid cycle, and your body will shunt the pyruvate to lactate fermentation to unload electron carriers so glycolysis can continue.

And thermoregulation? When you exercise you produce a lot more heat from your muscles. Your body will counteract this through sweating and vasodilation of arteries. This does not prevent blood doping from making you faster.

casual obsever wrote:

Non sequitur. What remains unlikely is that a non-doped athlete can beat the most talented doped athletes by over 2%, considering we know that a) 44% or more are doping and b) doping helps 2 minutes or 2 - 4% in the marathon (depending on the expert).

Because of these facts, you have repeatedly argued against a) and b), and now you even go so far to "conclude" that Paula was clean because she was so much faster than the rest for 14 years. Ridiculo.

Doping is not a magic potion that causes everyone to reach the same level. On the contrary, it enhances the level naturally reached more in some athletes than in others. You can see that in many publications. Thus, it renders the playing field even less even, as there are high and low responders to doping as well as training.

Finally note that doping became progressively limited with better Epo tests and later the ABP. Recall also the fact that Paula failed to run sub-2:22 after she got target-tested in 2005 again. In the end, we can only conclude that Paula was the most gifted in the early 2000s, for the athletes had to dope less thereafter. Note also that she was neither at the top before 2001 nor after 2005.

Then towards the end of the last decade, the shoes started to aid significantly. Likewise we don't know whether Kosgei and Keitany are more or less gifted than Paula, unfortunately.

yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

Geez...you're so incredulous with everything I say that's it's getting to the point of refraining from responding to your posts anymore and just let you babble on.

I'm not arguing that blood doping is not as important as androgens. You're the one that has constantly pointed out that there many more androgen positives than EPO positives with Kenyans (and Canova has emphasized this as well). Therefore, if you're not suggesting that androgen use is more prevalent than blood doping with the Kenyans - then what are you trying to convey?

My point on the androgen use with marathoners is to explain why they would be using it, i.e., what benefit would they be getting in an endurance event from typically a strength & muscle building drug. A few months ago at the gym, I was talking with an acquaintance of mine (non-runner) who wondered why a distance runner would take an anabolic steroid that would bulk him up like a bodybuilder. After explaining why (low dose used for strength & recovery, etc.) he said he had no idea since most at the elite level look so skinny & small.

Furthermore, if a distance runner tests positive for an androgen it doesn't automatically rule out they weren't also blood doping and vice versa. The popular stack with dopers is the EPO - androgen and/or HGH combo. We know this from all the doping ring raids invoving distance runners & endurance athletes where the substances confiscated were EPO, anabolic steroids, testosterone, HGH and corticosteroids. For example, at Aden's altitude camp in Sabella pre-packaged EPO syringes and anabolic steroids were confiscated. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is the stack Aden was using with his athletes (if he was just going to go with the EPO then why bring the steroids and vice versa?).

And getting back to Kisorio - he tested positive for the steroid Norandrosterone in 2012 and after his ban, he appears on the FB WADA-hacked documents as "Likely Doping" with specific notes to test for an ESA 4-6 weeks before competition. This suggests to me he was using both roids & blood doping in 2012 but only tested positive for the roids, and in 2016 his blood values got a little high pushing into the "Likely Doping" category. Others may see it differently thinking he only used roids at the time of his bust and switched to blood doping after his ban. Nonetheless, I think he's a career doper.

An interview with one your favorite coaches who you have defended vehemently over his doping bust, states this in an interview he gave to Sweatelite:

"Alberto Salazar: Locating the Line Between Acceptable Performance Enhancement and Cheating."

https://www.sweatelite.co/alberto-salazar-locating-line-acceptable-performance-enhancement-cheating/

"I believe that it is currently difficult to be among the top 5 in the world in any of the distance events without using EPO or Human Growth Hormone. While some of the top athletes may be clean, so many athletes are running so fast that their performances are suspect. This is compounded for me by the fact that the times these athletes are running just happen to coincide exactly with what top exercise physiologists have calculated taking EPO would produce."

Interestingly, he says EPO...or...HGH. He also credits excercise physiologists for their accurate calculations of the fast times EPO would produce with world-class elites (something you've always dismissed as just an opinion and not to be extrapolated to elites. Lol).

There you go - from your idol: EPO or HGH produces very fast times with dopers (bookmark that link and don't try to tell us in future debates that there are no elite coaches who don't know the power of doping with world class athletes).

Do you people actually believe that drugs can give you more energy?

rekrunner wrote:

But we don't know a) nor b). And we don't know if Paula doped. We do know she trained at altitude.

rekrunner wrote:

I didn't conclude anything but proposed that doping effect for marathons at the elite level must be small, or negligible, or else someone would have replicated her success over the course of 14 years.

rekrunner wrote:

When doping effect at the world record level is negligible, the distribution of who dopes and who doesn't can be random. We cannot tell who dopes from their performance.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But we don't know a) nor b). And we don't know if Paula doped. We do know she trained at altitude.

Keep telling yourself that. Or read the various peer-reviewed papers and expert statements in CAS decisions again.

rekrunner wrote:

I didn't conclude anything but proposed that doping effect for marathons at the elite level must be small, or negligible, or else someone would have replicated her success over the course of 14 years.

You are playing opposite day again. No? Then apply the same "logic" to Jarmila (not replicated for 37 years and counting), Marita (35 years), Wang (23 years), Tirunesh (12 years) or Qu (22 years):

"doping effect for 400 m/800 m/15000 m/10,000 m at the elite level must be small, or negligible, or else someone would have replicated her success over the course of 12 - 37 years."

Literally LOL.

rekrunner wrote:

When doping effect at the world record level is negligible, the distribution of who dopes and who doesn't can be random. We cannot tell who dopes from their performance.

Ummm - didn't you just say that you "didn't conclude anything"? "When... is...", you mean:

If... were...

"During the testing, I also learned that my iron level is very high for a woman, close to 16 for my hemoglobin level and 45 for my hematocrit when I'm healthy. There are many men who don't have levels that high.

Dr. Dave and I theorized that my body reacts as if I am always at a high altitude- sleeping, living and training there. My heart has to work harder as well, along with everything else, to function with less oxygen. This may have made have made me the physically strong athlete I am today. With a resting heart rate of 29-31 beats per minute, my working heart rate is low...

This may also be the reason I can eat so much, and why I don't tire or hit "The Wall" in the final stages of a marathon like most athletes. Maybe asthma has helped me almost as often as it's hindered me, and has been as much a gift as a disability."

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But it has been replicated. In fact, it has been surpassed.

What is the principle that establishes doping must produce continuing and constant improvement in the best performances? It would likely run up against the women's sprint and middle distance

records of the 1980's - which haven't been bested in over 30 years. And yet we know doping has persisted in those (and other) events. None of that enables us to conclude the effects of doping are "small or negligible". Athletes dont have to beat world marks to have benefited from doping - and significantly.

It wasn't surpassed in the 14 years between 2003-2017. No one came within 2.2%.

I don't know what that principle is -- for the marathon, I'm suggesting the opposite.

We weren't talking about continuous improvement here, but a 2.5% outlier, which became a 2.2% outlier.

I don't doubt non-elite athletes can benefit significantly, but we are talking about world-record class athletes.