Why so much Lance Armstrong hate but turn a blind eye at Bekele, Geb, etc ?

GenericID wrote:

jono wrote:

But we aren't limited in our oxygen delivery in the way that you think, we are limited in our neuromotor efficiency and this manifests itself as an apparent oxygen delivery problem rather than a real one.

Cyclists are limited by their oxygen delivery systems.

Not in the way that you think. Both cycling and running are neuromotor skills. When you cycle or run, you are accelerating the limbs in very subtle ways, the skill of which can be continuously developed.

rekrunner wrote:

Basically, a drug only works, if it's addressing a weakness. The benefit is relative to the amount that weakness can be strengthened. This is why it might help a 15:00 5K runner more than a 13:00 5K runner -- because of the difference of their state of training. This is what I meant by weakness.

You are assuming that the 15 minute 5k runner has a weakness in his oxygen delivery, which if he had been training regularly is almost certainly false. If we assume that they have the same percentage body fat, then he has a weakness relative to the 13 minute runner in his neuromotor control. He gets tired quickly when running 62 second laps whereas the 13 minute runner doesn't.

There isn't even proof that athletes died from EPO abuse. In most of the cited cases, it was most likely either congenital heart defect or pathological heart disease from viral infection.

Well you are over-reacting, and I think you expect too much. I think it's self-evident that everyone can react differently to drugs. Can you provide me a precedent in this thread for proving claims with peer-reviewed journals? If this becomes a letsrun standard for contributing to the forum, the forum will disappear overnight. Will you also demand a peer-reviewed journal to find that Geb and Bekele doped? Do you have similar proof for your unsupported claims, e.g. that oxygen delivery is always a weakness in cycling? See:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocriteAre adverse reactions the opposite of negative reactions? One doctor disagrees. See:http://lungcancer.about.com/od/glossary/g/adversereaction.htm"An adverse reaction is an unwanted or unexpected negative reaction to a medication or treatment"Regarding EPO, there are very few studies that can be applied to the elite, and very few studies that discuss negative reactions to EPO. See:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.12034/pdfThe studies that do exist generally publish statistical summaries of the test results, with averages and standard deviations.Generally speaking, "It is almost axiomatic that" drugs can have a wide variability of positive and unexpected negative reactions. See:http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v1/n1/full/nrd705.htmlKennedy, D. L., Johnson, J. M. & Nightingale, S. L. Monitoring of adverse drug events in hospitals. JAMA 266, 2878 (1991).Classen, D. C., Pestotnik, S. L., Evans, R. S., Lloyd, J. F. & Burke, J. P. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA 277, 301–306 (1997).Dormann, H. et al. Incidence and costs of adverse drug reactions during hospitalisation: computerised monitoring versus stimulated spontaneous reporting. Drug Saf. 22, 161–168 (2000).Brewer, T. & Colditz, G. A. Postmarketing surveillance and adverse drug reactions: current perspectives and future needs. JAMA 281, 824–829 (1999).Some athletes respond with negative performance to blood transfusions. It's a historical fact that Italian athletes Antibo Salvatore, Maurizio Damilano, and Massimo Magnani performed worse when blood doping, and performed better when they stopped. See:http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2983877&page=6http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4290090&page=39In "hi-lo" altitude training experiments, there was substantial individual variation to performance improvement. Some athletes responded very well; some did not respond; some performed worse:http://jap.physiology.org/content/83/1/102.fullhttp://jap.physiology.org/content/91/3/1113.fullRegarding EPO, "high blood pressure", and "thrombosis" are "unwanted negative reactions" and could pose a health risk. See "rHuEPO adverse effects in athletes" for a longer list of health concerns:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.12034/pdfThe risk of coagulation from higher blood viscosity, combined with lower blood volume, can be more pronounced in dehydrated and hyperthermic exercise conditions:Gonzalez-Alonso J, Mora-Rodriguez R, Below PR, Coyle EF. Dehydration markedly impairs cardiovascular function in hyperthermic endurance athletes during exercise. J Appl.Physiol. 1997; 82: 1229-1236.Gonzalez-Alonso J, Mora-Rodriguez R, Coyle EF. Stroke volume during exercise: interaction of environment and hydration. Am J Physiol.Heart Circ.Physiol. 2000; 278: H321-H330.A professional cyclist developed cerebral sinus thrombosis after 3 months of rHuEPO:Lage JM, Panizo C, Masdeu J, Rocha E. Cyclist's doping associated with cerebral sinus thrombosis. Neurology 2002; 58: 665.Death can also be considered a negative reaction:Tainted Glory – Doping and Athletic Performance. Noakes, TD. NEJM. 351:9. Aug.26. 2004

Well yes, it's more a function of relative level of training, and not necessarily absolute time.

jono wrote:

You are assuming that the 15 minute 5k runner has a weakness in his oxygen delivery, which if he had been training regularly is almost certainly false. If we assume that they have the same percentage body fat, then he has a weakness relative to the 13 minute runner in his neuromotor control. He gets tired quickly when running 62 second laps whereas the 13 minute runner doesn't.

Wasn't it something like 18 deaths in a few short years? Seems like a lot of deaths coincidentally around the late 80s/early 90s. I won't ask you for coroner reports though.

jono wrote:

There isn't even proof that athletes died from EPO abuse. In most of the cited cases, it was most likely either congenital heart defect or pathological heart disease from viral infection.

I didn't find any research on vindaloos (maybe jono knows something?), but "Haile Here" recommends against spicy hotwings:http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4856038

GenericID wrote:

Diarrhoea interferes with training! So I guess a vindaloo is contra-indicated?

jono wrote:

Not in the way that you think. Both cycling and running are neuromotor skills. When you cycle or run, you are accelerating the limbs in very subtle ways, the skill of which can be continuously developed.

I don't wish to be rude, but this is just meaningless drivel. Whether or not cycling and/or running are "neuromotor skills" is irrelevant to whether or not performance can be enhanced by EPO.

There are plenty of good studies demonstrating the effectiveness of EPO as a performance enhancer, and most of them demonstrate this improvement within timeframes where skills improvement cannot have been a significant factor.

Besides which, if "neuromotor skills" are solely responsible for performance improvements, why do we get slower as we get older? If, as you appear to be claiming, the more we do a sport the better we get - without limit (unless there's another definition of "continuously developed" that we should be aware of?) - then we should continue to get faster forever.

Hey, I'm just asking you to stick to your own standard of proof! Obviously your memory isn't very good, so let me remind you:

You want others to provide this evidence to you, but object when your own opinions are held to the same standard?

Why, yes, I do. It is the study that that you reference yourself. Time for a little logic: if a study of a group of cyclists demonstrates that manipulation of ONE and only ONE factor (oxygen delivery) results in an improvement of 54%, then oxygen delivery is a limiting factor in cycling performance.

Oh boy, having dealt with your inability to think logically, I guess I'm going to have to teach you about "context": in the "context" of performance enhancement the ONLY unwanted or unexpected negative reaction is a lack of, or worsening of, performance. Adverse reactions like diarrhoea are only adverse reactions in the context of treatment of disease, because they may affect recovery - but if you have diarrhoea and run 10 seconds faster anyway then that is not an adverse reaction.

It is interesting that you entered this discussion with the claim that we couldn't know for sure about the effectiveness of EPO because dopers take a variety of drugs to OK increase their performance, yet - when it suits you - EPO definitely caused this cyclist's health problem. If you read the report even the doctors blame the "drug cocktail", but you can tell us that it was the EPO and ONLY the EPO? How do you know?

I'd have another look at the definition of "hypocrite" if I were you.

BTW, hi-lo training and blood doping are not EPO, and therefore irrelevant.

Yes. Regarding my high standards, accurately connecting EPO with performance improvements requires the right data. But for broader questions, like the existence of organized doping, I would consider "lesser" evidence, like the kind that brought down Lance: failed tests, direct testimony from insiders, secret relationships with suspicious doctors, chuminess with the federation, evidence of organization, etc.

I'll agree that oxygen delivery "can be" a limiting factor in cycling, but you said "ALWAYS", in CAPs. This study doesn't show that:

- this study looked at 330W riders, not 500W riders. Elite cyclists might have different limitations.

- this study performed a peak power test, and a time to exhaustion test (lasting ~33 minutes). These tests aren't representative of real racing, at rider chosen intensities, like time trials, or a 5 hour stage of the Tour.

- it doesn't address my expressed doubt that 5 hours of cycling is way below sub-VO2max -- how is oxygen delivery a limiting factor at 75% intensity?

- Is oxygen delivery the "ONE and only ONE factor" that was tested? Was it even tested? Is cycling to exhaustion terminated by insufficient delivery of oxygen? Why is that, because the red blood cells start dying during a race? Some also think that EPO has non-oxygen benefits, like anti-inflammatory or tissue protective benefits.

Regarding the brain clot victim, and my selective inclusion of facts, you asked me to try and not be verbose. This wasn't to suit me, but to suit you. Testosterone and steroids also provide EPO-like strength and recovery benefits, so cannot be ignored. EPO thickens the blood, which can coagulate or clot, leading to thrombosis. I'm not aware that HGH or Vitamin A and E can thicken the blood. Do other drugs thicken the blood?

I also showed that dehydration (such as during intense exercise) makes the thickening worse. Diarrhea also causes water loss.

I already indicated what was behind my "some athletes react negatively to EPO" claim. What I wrote isn't exactly what I meant to say. Since the data on EPO is very limited, especially negative responses, I will limit my claims to what I've just shown: blood-doping didn't always work, and hi-lo training didn't always work -- maybe EPO response shows similar variability, maybe not -- and that EPO can cause problems that interfere with training. (I didn't mention anemia, but it looks like monitoring iron is also important.) These are my doubts that, getting back to Geb and Bekele, can only be cleared up with better data.

TLW wrote:

I think it's safe to assume Geb and Komen were on EPO. It doesn't make them bad people, it's just a reality of that era, especially before the EPO test.

1. Yes it would make them bad people.

2. Komen raises some red flags for me

3. Geb still runs the times that he did 10 years ago when you factor in the Age Grade. So either he was dirty back then and still competes dirty or he has been clean all along.

Regarding the brain clot victim, and my selective inclusion of facts, you asked me to try and not be verbose.

What you did is called sandpapering, it is dishonest and you are a liar who has been caught in a lie.

I don't waste my time with liars.

Yeah, whatever. You are still over-reacting -- it seems artificial.It's not dishonest if there is no intent to deceive, and no deception occurred, and certainly if no deception is possible, because the words are not wrong in context. There is no dispute that other PEDs contribute to strength and recovery. In that context, they cannot be ignored. But in the context of thrombosis, if the other drugs are suspected to also cause blood clotting, I would admit to an "honest lie" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Honest_lie). It's an example of thrombosis caused by EPO. If this is a bad example, because of confounders, I guess it would be hard to find other examples, to support this non-controversial, and generally accepted position.("Exaggeration" can be classified as a lie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Exaggeration).

I'm happy to let you go on your merry way, you've had your arse handed to you every which way on this thread. As long as you realise that: (1) you've made absolutely no case for your allegations, and; (2) your argumentation skills are pitiful.

I wouldn't want you to think you've made a good case for your side, because the fact is that you haven't.

Bye.

It's not dishonest if there is no intent to deceive

A professional cyclist developed cerebral sinus thrombosis after 3 months of rHuEPO

So in this case, we cannot attribute the appearance of the thrombosis to a single agent, but to the effect of the doping drug cocktail.

Context that, lying bag of scum.

You've had your arse handed to you every which way on this thread. As long as you realise that: (1) you've made absolutely no case for your allegations, and; (2) your argumentation skills are pitiful.

I wouldn't want you to think you've made a good case for your side, because the fact is that you haven't.

Bye-bye liar.

Sorry, I missed that.

I ignored these things for the reasons I said -- thrombosis isn't usually connected with HGH and Vitamin A and E, so didn't seem relevant.

According to the doctors:

GH may also increase red-blood cell mass

Vitamin A regulates GH production

We can't rule out synergy in this case

Learn some basic neuroscience and then get back to me in a few years.

Yes elite cyclists or runners may have another limitation than oxygen to their performance. But to turn it around, do you really believe that oxygen supply is not the number one limiting factor even for elite athletes?

So you don't know what you are talking about - what a surprise!

So this is a question about what I believe, right? I believe not always.I didn't talk about "oxygen supply", but "oxygen delivery", because more red blood cells can deliver more oxygen from the air, to the muscles.But if "oxygen delivery" is high, and "oxygen utilization" is low, or saturated, how will it improve performance to then increase "oxygen delivery" by adding red blood cells?And ow does the "oxygen delivery" limitation work at sub-VO2max intensities like a 27:00 10K (at 94% VO2max) or a 2:04 marathon (at 84% VO2max)? A 13:30 5000m runner consumes oxygen at the same rate as the 27:00 10000m runner, and a 1:53:56 marathon runner. Is it his red blood cell count that is limiting his performance to 28:10 and 2:10:00?

Arthur__Lydiard wrote:

Yes elite cyclists or runners may have another limitation than oxygen to their performance. But to turn it around, do you really believe that oxygen supply is not the number one limiting factor even for elite athletes?