This is how deep is doping in Kenya

All studies have flaws. Researcher read into the data. How many studies have you seen which show "Improvement in VO2max of 6-7%"?

How much does adrenaline 'improve' VO2max, when the level is high compared to normal?

My guess is that it would be 6-7%. I'll put money on it. Anyone wanna take that bet?

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are kind of missing the point.

Regardless of what dopers and non-dopers are doing, the flaw in every study on EPO is that they don't control for training, and they don't factor in how training also impacts blood parameters in conjunction with performance.

[quote]FlawedThinking wrote:

This is exactly the argument of dopers, that they still had to do the training and it really did not matter. However, they are able to train at a higher level and make all their physiological changes faster than the non doper because less rest is required. ....

No study will ever be done that will "prove" it. Especially to people like Canova and you. How about Canova identify 20 runner he considers "world class" and convince them to participate in the study. All runners will have to be sequestered such that they cannot receive ANY outside substances, including food. Then all will train equally for 6 months without drugs and race the same marathon. Then half will train 6 months with drugs, the other half without, then race the same marathon. Not gonna happen. But that does not disprove doping works.

FlawedThinking wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are kind of missing the point.

Regardless of what dopers and non-dopers are doing, the flaw in every study on EPO is that they don't control for training, and they don't factor in how training also impacts blood parameters in conjunction with performance.

[quote]FlawedThinking wrote:

This is exactly the argument of dopers, that they still had to do the training and it really did not matter. However, they are able to train at a higher level and make all their physiological changes faster than the non doper because less rest is required. ....

How about you learn some basic physiology???

Not going to happen is it?

Jon Orange wrote:

All studies have flaws. Researcher read into the data. How many studies have you seen which show "Improvement in VO2max of 6-7%"?

How much does adrenaline 'improve' VO2max, when the level is high compared to normal?

My guess is that it would be 6-7%. I'll put money on it. Anyone wanna take that bet?

Jon, it's a lot more complex than that. Receptors down-regulate and desensitize in response to larger doses of agonist.

Homeostatic mechanisms are always at play.

If adrenaline binding to receptors on smooth muscles causes the muscle to contract in the circulatory system, and the system is less elastic, then the capability of the system to handle maximum blood flow would be impeded.

Vo2Max would decrease.

Cardiovascular Physiology Concepts - Klabunde

"NE preferentially binds α1-adrenoceptors to cause smooth muscle contraction and vasoconstriction. Similar responses occur when NE binds to postjunctional α2-adrenoceptors located on some blood vessels. NE also binds weakly to postjunctional β2-adrenoceptors, which causes vasodilation (this can be observed during alpha adrenoceptor blockade), although this vasodilator effect of NE is relatively minor and overwhelmed by alpha adrenoceptor-mediated vasoconstriction. Circulating epinephrine (EPI) binds with high affinity to smooth muscle β2-adrenoceptors to cause vasodilation in some organs; however, the effect EPI is very concentration dependent. While EPI has a higher affinity for β2 than postjunctional α1 or α2-adrenoceptors, at high concentrations it does bind to the postjunctional α1 and α2-adrenoceptors, which can override the vasodilatory effects of β2-adrenoceptor stimulation and produce vasoconstriction"

Epinephrine is adrenaline

The doping circus does reduce interest in athletics, a case on point being this forum, where true athletics are not even discussed any more, as the emphasis is entirely on drugs.

This shows very clearly that all the stealing is done by big pharma and their misdirected drug believing followers.

Banning people who take drugs does NOT put a stop to this, but rather continues to increase it, by putting even more money in the hands of big pharma, the promoters, and more encouragement for their ignorant lackeys.

The solution is to NOT ban people who take drugs, but to disband the drug alphabet agencies, take away the power of drug promoters, accusers and believers, which are all the same thing, and stop belittling the athletes.

Ban people from forums who constantly attack other runners, disparage athletics, and who focus entirely on drugs. If I was running this forum, which I have no interest in doing, the talk would be about athletics, not drugs, and all of the serious, interested and dedicated runners would be welcome. Stories, headlines and results would be all about runners, achievements, interests and results, and not all this constant and destructive negativity.

longjack wrote:

love canova.

but probably 20% of the cheaters were busted. or some such.

really, what kenyan that has a family to feed would not dope, particularly when the major competition of ethopia and morocco were on epo plus. combine that with bogus testing locally and under this environment. you are not loyal to your family if you don't cheat. plus are some africans really aware of the what is legal and illegal? or really have a clue about say bro jo moral stance.

next up. the entire of carribean track.

That is soooo condescending. You think you're trying to be fair but you are really saying is that Kenyans are too dumb to know they are doping or that doping is illegal and unethical. The myth of the "Noble Savage".

I haven't read this entire thread but I must say that Mr. Canova's viewpoint is very refreshing and moreover such a view coming from someone so involved with the sport makes me really want to believe him.

What is the "faster" point where this takes place?

Jon Orange wrote:

All studies have flaws. Researcher read into the data. How many studies have you seen which show "Improvement in VO2max of 6-7%"?

How much does adrenaline 'improve' VO2max, when the level is high compared to normal?

My guess is that it would be 6-7%. I'll put money on it. Anyone wanna take that bet?

Sure. You pay for the study and I'll take that bet.

I love this logic. " I'm against drugs but support their use 100% in athletics".

I wasn't talking about a study to "prove it", but simply pointing out that existing studies are flawed, and that EPO at the elite level is severely understudied.But it's not only me and Renato. Here are a group of Dutch researchers who say it better than I ever could, but for "elite" cycling:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/bcp.12034/The opening line is fantastic:"Imagine a medicine that is expected to have very limited effects based upon knowledge of its pharmacology and (patho)physiology and that is studied in the wrong population, with low-quality studies that use a surrogate end-point that relates to the clinical end-point in a partial manner at most."They talk about cycling, but in my own uninformed opinion, despite being fraught with its own laundry list of confounders, there is a stronger case for EPO in cycling than for running, only because many elite cyclists anecdotally claim it was a "game changer" in the 90's (here's a challenge: has any elite runner ever said that? I know I know -- people think Christian Hesch and Cathal Lombard are elite -- I regret asking).You offer an interesting proposal that certainly addresses the training aspect.Here's a study I'd like to see that could be done without Renato's elite athletes. Repeat *any* EPO *running* study (no VO2max studies, or cycling to exhaustion studies) that has been done, but chose subjects who are already well trained and performing at a high level. For example, pick the top 10 college male performers (seniors who have likely trained at least 8 years) who don't go pro (so you don't screw up their reputation/careers). Or alternatively pick a very large group of volunteers, and have them professionally trained for 5 years, and then only cherry pick the top 10% who have improved the most, and perform the best. Will these groups confirm the magnitude of results of the previous studies? That is an answer I'd like to know.To be clear, this "lesser experiment" only addresses the question of how "high performers trained near their potential" differ from "volunteer amateur subjects who may or may not be well trained", without answering the impact of East African unique factors.But who knows, maybe some "near the top" East Africans would appreciate being paid to participate in such a well-designed study?

FlawedThinking wrote:

No study will ever be done that will "prove" it. Especially to people like Canova and you. How about Canova identify 20 runner he considers "world class" and convince them to participate in the study. All runners will have to be sequestered such that they cannot receive ANY outside substances, including food. Then all will train equally for 6 months without drugs and race the same marathon. Then half will train 6 months with drugs, the other half without, then race the same marathon.

Renato Canova wrote:

The fact some stupid athlete can take doping, and can run fast, doesn't mean he could not achieve the same performance training in the best way, completely clean (this in long distances, not for example in throwing).

Then does this not mean that stupid athlete has been able to shortcut his/her way to competitive performance levels before going through the peak levels of training that would eventually get them there? Can you not see the advantage that can be gained by artificially accelerating your progress, given that time is never on an athletes side?

How about Eddie Hellebuyck? He went from 2:20 to 2:12 on EPO. Here is an article and quote:http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/the-confessions-of-eddy-hellebuyck"His confidence got another huge boost in October 2003 at the Twin Cities Marathon, where he won not only the masters championship but also won the overall title. "I ran 2:12:47 on that course, at age 42, and I totally destroyed the field. I took the lead at the 23-mile mark, and I won by a minute and a half. There were six Africans with me, it was an uphill course at that point, there were three miles to go, and I just powered away from them. I felt like anything was possible with EPO. I felt like Superman."Rita Jeptoo and Liliya Shobukhova are not talking, but neither could claim their gains were all natural. My proposed experiment means that the runners would know that the 2nd marathon would not be a payday because they were known cheaters. How hard would they train for that? And once labeled a cheater, Using drugs invalidates all results even prior to using them in many people's minds. So career over and races start suing for their prize money. Who would sign up for that? Enough people have been caught at the top ranks that it is clear EPO and other doping work. Kenyan's are not another species. It works on them too. Less so? Maybe, maybe not. Without real studies that will never happen, this is a purely speculative debate. So I guess we can each choose to pick the facts that best support our argument and believe on.

rekrunner wrote:

...

They talk about cycling, but in my own uninformed opinion, despite being fraught with its own laundry list of confounders, there is a stronger case for EPO in cycling than for running, only because many elite cyclists anecdotally claim it was a "game changer" in the 90's (here's a challenge: has any elite runner ever said that? I know I know -- people think Christian Hesch and Cathal Lombard are elite -- I regret asking).

You offer an interesting proposal that certainly addresses the training aspect.

...

Eddie Hellebuyk is a top runner for you? A 2:12:47 places him around the top 7400th of all time.

Help me understand why you think "Enough people have been caught at the top ranks that it is clear EPO and other doping work". I can accept that some runners take EPO because they, or someone else advising them, believes it will help performance.

Here's a challenge: Pick the top 500 male performers of all time, for any and all distances 1500m and above, and tell me how many you find that "have been caught at the top ranks that it is clear EPO and other doping work".

Repeat the challenge for the top 100 women, for 5000m and above, excluding steroids and male hormones when you can.

Compare either to cycling.

rekrunner wrote:

Eddie Hellebuyk is a top runner for you? A 2:12:47 places him around the top 7400th of all time.

Help me understand why you think "Enough people have been caught at the top ranks that it is clear EPO and other doping work". I can accept that some runners take EPO because they, or someone else advising them, believes it will help performance.

Here's a challenge: Pick the top 500 male performers of all time, for any and all distances 1500m and above, and tell me how many you find that "have been caught at the top ranks that it is clear EPO and other doping work".

Repeat the challenge for the top 100 women, for 5000m and above, excluding steroids and male hormones when you can.

Compare either to cycling.

Where did that rank him with other 42 year old guys that had been running without a break for 20 years?

10 minutes behind the top.