How come "epo time" marathon times were weak?

How about this one:

By the way, if you follow your own twisted logic to its logical conclusion, any improvement is only because of doping. What dope do you think Alysia Montaño took when she improved some 3-4 seconds from 2009 to 2010? Or did she eventually use things such as new, improved running shoes? Better nutrition? Filtered water? Smarter training? Yoga classes? Aerodynamic ultra-short running shorts? Or bun huggers for women?

If you know anything about Dr. Ferrari, he also told in 1994 that "EPO doesn't fundamentally change the performance of a racer". Naturally if your only knowledge on the guy is that link you have recycled 49th time, it doesn't read there.

On one case study about "rapid rise to the top", just take a look on the Alberico di Cecca, you brought up just a brief moment ago. The six percent improvement of the guy is essentially linear from 1997 to 2005. Honestly, anyone who in 1997 had heard about guy running 2:16 marathon only a weeks after his 23th birthday would've considered it even likely that he would run sub-2:10 times some day in the future.

rekrunner wrote:

You say I'm obfuscating, but then basically repeat exactly what I said. "It depends what the significant factors are with each athlete. Each situation is different."

Ramzi's doping and blood values have been discussed in great detail, and the fact that he doped is not in doubt. This is only one significant factor.

Focusing on only one significant factor as the only, or primary, source of massive improvements, is biased, incomplete, and dishonest.

Ramzi, 25th best of all time, is being held up as a good example of the great power of EPO to produce massive improvements, in a discussion that neglects to analyze other significant factors.

RWA wrote:

You're just obfuscating again like you did when this was discussed in the Sumgong thread. It depends what the significant factors are with each athlete. Each situation is different.

In the 2008, Ramzi absolutely smashed Kiprop (who internally is suspected to be dodgy, he has a dodgy association with Rosa and just before Rosa was busted he could run 3:29 in slow races, on slow tracks, in sub-optimal weather, without trying and ever since June last year he has magically lost his invincibility). He was also miles ahead of Willis (who later ran 3:29 twice) and Baala (3:28.98). And if you play your cards right Calculo might turn up here and tell you "that the big man" was in 1:42/3:27 shape that day because he placed one foot in lane two for 0.3s. So Ramzi's 3:29 is a poor indicator of how much juice was flowing through his veins. He was focused on medals not times and tailor-made his program to achieve this, which sounds like someone else rather famous.

You're simply obfuscating the issue, much like rekrunner...nothing new there. 02-vector doping allows an athlete an increased training volume & intensity, improved recovery, improved injury rehab, and so forth. This translates to improved gains in performance, and with high-responders, those improvements can be significant (see Ramzi).

And not just with endurance athletes, but some of the top sprinters of their time used rHuEPO as part of a cocktail of PEDs. Marion Jones used it (btw, wasn't she the one that wore that silly turbocharged aerodynamic Ninja costume at one time? Lol). And Dwain Chambers explained that rocket fuel enabled him to do more track repetitions and obtain a much deeper training load during the off season:

And Dick Pound explains more on the application of rHuEPO used by sprinters:

"EPO doesn't fundamentally change the performance of a racer." C'mon man...are you really falling for that? (It's like falling for "the banana in the tailpipe routine." 😅). Ferrari along with Concini were OBSESSED with 02-vector doping. That was their life; significantly improving the performance of cyclists with 02-vector doping. And Ferrari became a rich man off of his "programs." (who could have imagined).

And if you know anything about Lance Armstrong, he explains at a 2016 CU presentation how high-octane doping provided him with a 10% performance boost (and he paid Ferrari a million bucks for his program; i.e., "I want to be like those guys.").

Do you have any specific proof that he would have accomplished 2:08 & win the Rome Marathon without using rHuEPO? If he was destined to run 2:10s clean then why did he indulge in the rocket fuel? Weak mind? Misguided young athlete? Thought it was orange juice? 😄

And speaking of Marion Jones, here's a press conference in 2004 where she defends herself against doping allegations. She says she wouldn't need to use PEDs because of her "talent & hard work"....no surprises there. 😉

Thanks Aragon for the details, so I don't have to repeat myself here, when repeating what was already said in the other thread.

I didn't ask the doper or the coach. I expect the one making the claim that EPO caused Ramzi's and Mourhit's performance improvements, to identify possible significant factors that might confound their claim.We've seen that both Ramzi increased his training, and Mourhit was able to increase his training without injury, after solving his leg length problem.Training is a proven factor in performance improvements.Not mentioning this makes the argument incomplete.

Don't get fooled wrote:

Like what other significant factors? The same old factors that dopers chalk-off to their improvements and rapid rise to the top? Things such as new, improved running shoes? Better nutrition? Filtered water? Smarter training? Yoga classes? Aerodynamic ultra-short running shorts? (or bun huggers for women). Dopers and their coaches are always creating illusions by rationalizing the athlete's improvements ...

Don't fall for all the BS. Dopers are masters of illusion.😉

It's easy enough to understand, but oversimplified.You are saying Ramzi could not train more than 5 times a week without EPO?You are saying that Mourhit solved his leg length problem, allowing him to train longer without injuries, not with custom shoes, but with EPO?

simple training wrote:

Of course the improvements are actually because the athlete is training more and faster.

This being possible BECAUSE of the dope.

How is that so hard to understand rekrunner/JO?

rekrunner wrote:

It's easy enough to understand, but oversimplified.

You are saying Ramzi could not train more than 5 times a week without EPO?

You are saying that Mourhit solved his leg length problem, allowing him to train longer without injuries, not with custom shoes, but with EPO?

simple training wrote:

Of course the improvements are actually because the athlete is training more and faster.

This being possible BECAUSE of the dope.

How is that so hard to understand rekrunner/JO?

Are you sure you're not falling for "explanations" for improved performance that aren't really what happened?

Do you really believe Ramzi was only training 5 times a week before and Mourhit couldn't find a shoe lift?

Talk about obfuscation and misdirection.I was asked to comment on the slower runners Ramzi and Mourhit (already a re-direction and invariable concession from the original topic of world records in the epo-era versus marathon records after), and now you bring up Dwain Chambers, Marion Jones, and Lance Armstrong?I would concede without argument that the faith in EPO is so widespread, even sprinters have been convinced to include it in their arsenal of support. Athletes are not scientists, and they take risks based on faith (or others force them to take the risk, again based on faith).Conconi/Ferrari were obsessed with all drugs, not just O2-vector drugs. Lance used EPO, HGH, Testosterone, Cortisone, steroids, and even Actovegin. I think it's fair to say Lance was a good paying customer, and I guess Ferrari made more money by selling more drugs.If you want to go down the "EPO causes increased recovery, reduced injury, leads to higher training load and ultimately performance improvements" path, you need to do more work to substantiate yet another hypothesis weaved to the tangled web.Many EPO studies have looked at EPO and increased RBC leading to improved performance (particularly in the short term with non-elite athletes over short distances).Which studies can help us quantify what kinds of training loads, injury rates, recovery rates are possible between clean versus doped athletes, and, last but not least, the resulting performance increase?

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

You're simply obfuscating the issue, much like rekrunner...nothing new there. 02-vector doping allows an athlete an increased training volume & intensity, improved recovery, improved injury rehab, and so forth. ...

What I believe is that the cherry-picked examples of improvements due to EPO are incomplete and biased because they do not ever examine any factors outside of EPO. In many cases, the use of EPO has also been accompanied with a change in training and coaching situation, which merits analysis. Variability in times can also occur over the career of an athlete due to recurring injuries, due to changing training for a different event, and even the individual racing strategies, just to mention a few more factors that merits analysis.On a case by case basis, all individual athletes have unique histories, and to help understand the bigger picture, we need all the relevant facts.

simple training wrote:

Are you sure you're not falling for "explanations" for improved performance that aren't really what happened?

Do you really believe Ramzi was only training 5 times a week before and Mourhit couldn't find a shoe lift?

Come on Rek, it is time to throw in the towel on this one.

remember there is other dope involved too ...................

namely the speed peptide ,igf-1 lr3 for the few at the top .

imagine what a souped up nervous system can do for over 2 hours ,

much better form and that little extra speed especially on the likes of berlin

will all up to 1-2 minute difference on top of the epo.

for me that is where the drop has come from as cant be epo alone

even with better pacing and berlin style races

still times would top out in the 2hr 5 to 2hrs 4 min mark .

little testing previously especially

for big guys backed by certain managers was the case previously

and up to now and more guys but still same time until speed peptide

use became widespread.

look what this peptide can do for a laura muir or a andy butchart

where not doping on the same scale and probably using this alone

with altitude training.

rekrunner, don't become a stand in for Jon Orange. I know he's still posting on this thread but you're pushing him out of the running for most delusional moran. You're smarter than that.

Those athletes would just come back and prove themselves clean if they could. They didn't.

before you deny speed peptide use in track

as mentioned many times before its mention is off cards .

as used by all the top names in many sports worldwide ,

and one of reason got there and able to stay at top .not up for debate by wada

.......................................................................................................

tell me why THE JAVELIN is the only event in track that is progressing

still with rules /testing /behind scenes carry on as they stand at moment.

perfectly suited to use of this ped alone by itself .

whereas sprints gets only so far , testosterone needed and then serious roids to go step further , and no chosen few in short sprints at moment

only in 400m are there being allowances being made for certain stars .

as mentioned MICERA is the best form of epo by far ,

look what did for alan webb and what was like after it was ruled out.

yes might not of wanted to risk much epo use after unlike eastern africans

like ramzi also not helped that a marked man and as were other morrocans

and also coincides with biopassport which only came to certain places later

why they just gave up the ghost and said it was good while lasted

and without the dope and still pushing , burn out fast .

also dont forget those very fast times of new york and boston

around 2011-2012 was very much due to GW501516 .

and it hitting track scene

especially the later part of race where helps does energy demands

Context. The issue was the "change of heart", and the 1994 quote debunked your claim about that allegation without taking no position whether Ferrari was telling truth or not.

Again context. It was to debunk your allegations that rEPO users have "rapid rise to the top" and you maintained that he went from 2:15 to 2:08 hinting that it was in relatively quick time (mostly likely based on his Wikipedia page). I think he succumbed to rEPO use because the science and anecdotal evidence pointed out that it would improve his speed by several percents. It is totally another issue whether in the end he gained 0, 0.5 or 3 percent or whether the effect was detrimental. Honestly we can't even certainly know when he succumbed to use ESAs, whether it took place in late 1990s or 2005 or when.

Many aspects of Lance Armstrong's motivations as well as some details of his story 1993-1994 story have been discussed and questioned and you are aware of it, so this is another recycled and discussed issue. Even you had no response when I pointed out that Lance was simply wrong in claiming that peloton was "EPO free" in 1993. None.

casual obsever wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

let's not pretend the ABP doesn't put a severe buzzkill on what EPO can achieve, compared with unrestricted out-of-competition use. And yet all those road records from the unrestricted era are gone, in a very active progression likely to continue.

Do they? That remains to be seen, but the 10 km road and the half marathon records are from 2010, and the marathon record from 2014.

Also, "microdosing" is a strange euphemism, as the ABP allows for Hct increases of 10-20%

2010 is after the ABP started. And the marathon record is not an outlier, it has been buzzed repeatedly. It represents a steady progression involving multiple runners at the same time. Kipchoge and Bekele are both likely capable of beating it soon, possibly others too.

However athletes get around the ABP, it is hard to argue (without posing straw) that getting away with EPO use is as easy now as before the ABP. Are you saying it is?

That, or having been the world's top miler for 10 years he's finally starting to slow down?

Aragon, why bother trying to debate with wejo and rojo trolling under different names. This is their job, it's pure click bait. Don't feed the trolls.

The "change of heart" is a facetious remark. C'mon now...don’t you think it's hilarious that Ferrari in 2013, when the heat is on from the medical commission, says LA could have achieved the same level of improvement through altitude training. Lance must feel like a smuck that he could have saved a million dollars by just training & preparing in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. 😅

I look at their IAAF profile progression/graph charts and there are several cases of confirmed rHuEPO users over the last decades who have had significant increases in performance, with some in a realitively short period of time. Almost all of them never come close to running the same times post-ban than what they ran pre-ban. Coincidence? This has been discussed many times in other threads, as I've pointed this trend with some of the top runners in their respected disciplines (e.g., Ramzi, Mourhit, Garcia, Ceplak, Dominguez, etc). You're the one that's incredulous of the evidence & continue to undermine with your own pre-conceived mindset that O2-vector doping doesn't/can't produce those kinds of improvements...so it's a pointless debate.

Yes...I did respond to this! You're not comprehending what LA is exactly stating in the CU presentation. Listen closely @ 3:55 into the video. He clearly states that "his win" at the 93 Worlds was an "EPO-FREE WIN"....not the peloton. He goes on talk about that "low-octane doping" was involved with his win, but not "high-octane." I think he's trying to impress the college kids that he could actually win an event without EPO. 😁

That 157.8 is a staggering number, breathtaking. His reticulocyte levels must have been so low to produce an off-score like that. Seriously, that is a down-stream from a nuclear plant level off-score. 👽