A closer look at EPO-era performances

rekrunner wrote:

So long as we are sticking to what the record shows, Ceplak's PB is from 2002, and her EPO bust is from 2007. In 2007, she was running slower at 1:59 and 2:00.

Wasn't word out sometime in 05/06 that the EPO test was more sensitive and better at detecting usage? She may have been toning it down around that time period but perhaps didn't anticipate the OOC test that nailed her in 07...just a thought. One thing is certain, though, in ref to what the record shows: 3 second improvement in one year (1:58/01 - 1:55/02) & an 8 second improvement in the 1500 during the same period (4:13/01 - 4:05/02). And as I mentioned before, Čeplak was crap after her ban running times of 2:07s which she hadn't run since 94:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Rocket Fuel Rick wrote:

Good point on blood doping methods:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573270

"Reinfusion of RBCs caused a reduction of approximately one minute in time to run the

10-km race."

Rick, I agree blood reinfusions obviously help 10k times, people who deny this have serious issues, but what is interesting is that 10,000m bests improved by some 3% within a decade after epo's mainstream arrival c1993-1994. Something like HGH in combination with EPO and altitude training must have produced a mutant class of runners when compared the 1980s 27:20 guys who likely were doing infusions.[/quote]Interesting...when was the test for HGH developed? Looking the list of doping cases for athletics, there's only a few HGH positives listed (all for field athletes) with the earliest in 2010. And wasn't EPO + HGH the combo cyclists like?

further data to be analysed wrote:

Can somebody please contact the Spanish Track and Field Federation and tell them to send these data to rekrunner so that he can analyze them and prove that EPO does not work!

That sounds like something Gary would do. ?

The problem with this thread is EVERYBODY is assuming that all top runners have and always have doped everywhere. Then you're using statistics around raised performances in the EPO era to psuedo-scientifically argue that Africans are indeed genetically superior because all EPO did was give them a level playing field with the high tech dopers of the West.

But here's the thing. 'RekRunner' as his name suggests is a hobby jogger. 'CasualObserver' I assume is also a hobby jogger. I'd respect this 'everybody dopes' assumption a bit more if some actual coaches or former runners were saying this. From his knowledgable posts since I've started coming to this forum, I assume SubwaySurfersAddiction has a closer hands on involvement in athletics. So I'd like to know what kind of experiences he is basing his belief upon.

Also, none of you every attempt to answer the objection I have made here a few times regarding Brit middle-distance runners duing the EPO era. I'm not going to spend hours coming up with statistics, but it's plain to see that middle-distance running declined in the UK almost as exactly as you'd expect giving 1/ certain social factors in the UK such as growing obesity, massive rise in wages in competing sports such as soccer etc. and 2/ they became dispirited in the face of hordes of cheating Africans (some like Curtis Robb literally gave up, others like David Sharpe effectively did).

Are you really saying that people like Robb and Matthew Yates, Anthony Whiteman, John Mayock were all doping in EPO and steroids? Even if that was the case, haven't you agreed earlier in this thread that EPO was not only easier but more effective than blood doping? If so, why were they so much slower than Coe, Cram and Ovett? Either you have some explaining to do there, or you have to admit that not everybody dopes, at least in the UK.

I've also given the example of the UFC. There are clearly some fighters who didn't dope, even there was very limited testing, for example Michael Bisping (from the UK). There are quite a few others too. If not everybody dopes in a sport like that, I'd suggest it's possible that quite a few top runners don't dope, or at least didn't when it was still possible to compete at the top without resorting to doping (ie. before EPO and the new Aouita form of HGH).

i feel you on your assumptions. rekrunner is def a slow as balls hobby jogger and didnt compete at a high level EVER. he prob didnt pick up jogging till his late 20s and think he knows everything about everything.

vent/calculo isnt even a hobby jogger, he is a non athlete who is short fat and wears glasses. why and how these people think they can talk sh*t about things they cant comprehend and are protected by brojos and the mods is beyond me.

why did UK slump down after coe and company? are you really that dunce? have you see the talent that comes out of the UK? its absolute garbage. kinda like the US at the same time. the difference that happened is we got a resurgence and kids that had talent went out for cross and track, and started putting in MILES. this all happened because of webb/hall/ritz and dyestat. the UK didnt have a big 3 or a highschool website that was all about running did you? no you didnt and without Mo you guys still produce garbage. you think your garbage runners didnt dope? come on man.

Coe was a top talent and was on anabolics and blood doping. why its so hard for people to comprehend that a shorter race that is at 85% or so sprint speed will have less improvement from anabolics/blood doping (60-80s) and anabolics/hgh/EPO(90s-now).

but when the distance increases and there is more of a % difference in the anaerobic/aerobic systems EPO makes a bigger difference.

i did a few hours of effort to show pre and post EPO times and rekrunner didnt like it, and it was deleted. then i was banned.

EPO makes a ~3% improvement, and if you take the WRs up to 1985 or so and do a 3% improvement you get the WRs of today.

and those were more than likely done on anabolics/blood doping. roids have been around since 1930s so dont make that mistake that things were clean before 1968.

but dont take my word for it, take the current WRs and do a 3% reduction on them and tell me what you get?

i think 1:42, 3:31, 7:30, 13:04, 27:12, 2:06......i think thats about what i came up with when i did the math, and as you will see those will now be the best from here on out the harder they crack down on EPO

Why would I be interested in these slow runners? The article looks like sour grapes from an even slower runner.

further data to be analysed wrote:

"Five Spaniards, including Anton, and the 1995 world champion Martin Fiz, who finished eighth in Saturday's race, have run 2:08.5 or better."

Can somebody please contact the Spanish Track and Field Federation and tell them to send these data to rekrunner so that he can analyze them and prove that EPO does not work!

why are you interested in these slow runners gary? they are 1,000 times faster than your hobby jogging a$$.....look honey buns you dont need to keep beating the dead horse, we all get it EPO doesnt work. PEDs dont work, in fact drugs of all kind dont work, not even cute little asprin. the only thing that works is good ol hard work! let me guess you voted for Trump didnt ya big boy....ahhhh so cute i love you rekrunner, your making LR great again

Why do you keep repeating this? I argued about the one group that was "NOT Africans", wondering why EPO didn't close the gap. A few people are arguing that "NOT Africans" doped less, because of stricter testing and enforcement. Most people argue that Africans ran faster because more Africans doped, and they doped more. I think no one has argued superior genetics of Africans, but a couple have argued against it.

Coevett wrote:

The problem with this thread is EVERYBODY is assuming that all top runners have and always have doped everywhere. Then you're using statistics around raised performances in the EPO era to psuedo-scientifically argue that Africans are indeed genetically superior because all EPO did was give them a level playing field with the high tech dopers of the West.

rekrunner wrote:

Why would I be interested in these slow runners? The article looks like sour grapes from an even slower runner.

further data to be analysed wrote:

"Five Spaniards, including Anton, and the 1995 world champion Martin Fiz, who finished eighth in Saturday's race, have run 2:08.5 or better."

Can somebody please contact the Spanish Track and Field Federation and tell them to send these data to rekrunner so that he can analyze them and prove that EPO does not work!

Yes sorry why should you be worrying about multiple World Champions and marathon major winners from the EPO era? Nothing of interest for you to see there.

Let us also ignore the fact that these are the only sort of data that are going to give you an idea as to whether EPO is effective in a given elite athlete: longitudinal data over several months/years that document the changes in performance from when the athelete started taking EPO. So maybe you can analye them to show that EPO does not work in the same way that you have shown on this thread that times got faster in track and field after the introduction of EPO because of the ineffectiveness of EPO ....

But what is the argument or evidence that 'everybody dopes'? I still haven't seen it. This forum is a complete free for all when it comes to doping allegations. Every single past and present runner, coach, doctor etc ever involved with track and field who is alive today must be aware LetsRun and its liberal policy on doping accusations. Why aren't any of these people ever here saying (anonymously or not) that so and so doped, instead of hobby joggers like Gary making assumptions trying to justify why they never broke 23 minutes for the 5K? It's not like blood doping back in the days was a simple thing that would only involve a runner, his coach, and maybe one doctor. Even with streroids back then they didn't have a clue about things like postcycling and stuff. Even bodybuilders in the 60's and 70's like Arnie, who would have been far more knowledgeable than runners, just shoveled them in 365 days a year. That's why so many East Germans are now scr***d, especially the women of course, and the men seemed to rarely have long careers. It's surprising that 1/ guys like Walker, Boit, Coe did manage to have such long careers, 2/ there aren't far more of them suffering heart problems etc. If you say that they were dopign themselves silly since the 30s it's extremely odd that nearly every great middle and distance runner of the last century reaches their 70s, 80s and even 90s. Steroids today are generally a bit more sophisticated and even the dumbest gym rat knows how to cycle and take safeguards, yet people are dying of steroid abuse all the time.

According to most in this forum, every finalist in the 800m 1964 Tokyo Olympics would have been taking steroids, crystal meth and any number of amphetamimes, and blood doping - and for most of their careers. Odd then that, of the eight finalists, six are still alive and in their 70s or 80s. The Belgian runner who finished last died in 2016 aged 78. Only one of the finalist died 'prematurely', the East German athlete (as you would expect if they were generally the only ones doping). And btw, the East Germans would obviously have more knowledge about doping with the best doctors openly helping to dope their athletes, yet it seems it didn't help their long term health. It will be interesting in another decade if we do start to see some of the EPO generation developing heart problems and the like. That would be massive evidence that the premise that everybody always doped is false.

One study that Gary refers to again and again that 53% of runners at an African games admitted doping. That for him proves conclusively that everybody has doped everywhere at all times...

Of the 25 runners who made the quaterfinals of the 1960 Rome 800m, 20 are still alive and I think Peter Snell is the youngest at 79 (and in very fine health). 4 of the 5 who died were either Eastern Bloc athletes or Africans, and the other lived to 78.

rekrunner wrote:

Why would I be interested in these slow runners? The article looks like sour grapes from an even slower runner.

Are you kidding me Gary?!? Slow runners? How about World Championship runners? Soak this in: Between Anton & Fiz they have 3 WC Golds & 2 EC Golds all during the 90s!

rekrunner wrote:

Why do you keep repeating this?

I argued about the one group that was "NOT Africans", wondering why EPO didn't close the gap.

A few people are arguing that "NOT Africans" doped less, because of stricter testing and enforcement.

Most people argue that Africans ran faster because more Africans doped, and they doped more.

I think no one has argued superior genetics of Africans, but a couple have argued against it.

Gary...you knew this would happen when you throw everybody under the bus. It's far better for the purpose of a PED performance debate, to analyze & discuss the confirmed doping cases and the ones with strong links to doping (East German & Russian state sponsored doping, Spanish organized doping rings, e.g. Galgo & Puerto, BALCO scandal, etc.).

There's so many doping positives, ABP sanctions & links to organized doping rings that one can have a field day analyzing improvement in performance (i.e., individual response) and success (competition record). This way if there is no proof of doping for many other athletes then at least they can be given the benefit of the doubt and no hostilities will ensue from their supporters. Case in point: I still run into a few Ramzi diehards here & there who argue that he's the GOAT of mid-d primarily based on his WC double-gold & Beijing performance. But none of these diehards has ever gotten in my face saying there's no proof of doping against their guy. Lol.

m!ndweak wrote:

Coe was a top talent and was on anabolics and blood doping. why its so hard for people to comprehend that a shorter race that is at 85% or so sprint speed will have less improvement from anabolics/blood doping (60-80s) and anabolics/hgh/EPO(90s-now).

C'mon man! Where's the proof that Coe "was on anabolics and blood doping?" I agree he was a top talent and maybe the GOAT. But c'mon...where's the PROOF? You just can't keep casting aspersions on athletes just because they're talented & fast, or run for a country you don't like. You need a little more than just that. ?

Your coin flipping example makes more sense if I'm trying to predict the future from a small sample of past results. What I measured, for the different groups I selected, is historical fact with p=1, for the selected groups, for the selected period. This will not change by adding more data points, because there are no more data points, without changing the selection criteria. I don't doubt that adding slower runners, will produce different results which must be interpreted with that in mind. Then, I'm using this historical p=1 data, to question some of the assumptions about the EPO-era. What is the basis in reality for these assumptions, if not in historical performances? Indeed, EPO is presumed to have a large effect, precisely due to performances from the mid-1990s and 2000s.

Rocket Fuel Rick wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Good point on blood doping methods:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573270

"Reinfusion of RBCs caused a reduction of approximately one minute in time to run the

10-km race."

Rick, I agree blood reinfusions obviously help 10k times, people who deny this have serious issues, but what is interesting is that 10,000m bests improved by some 3% within a decade after epo's mainstream arrival c1993-1994. Something like HGH in combination with EPO and altitude training must have produced a mutant class of runners when compared the 1980s 27:20 guys who likely were doing infusions.

Interesting...when was the test for HGH developed? Looking the list of doping cases for athletics, there's only a few HGH positives listed (all for field athletes) with the earliest in 2010. And wasn't EPO + HGH the combo cyclists like?[/quote]

Well now you've got me suspicious, I'm demanding pop_popV2 turn up in this thread to explain how in 2000 they promised us an HGH test and it was all lies, lies I'll tell you. In the intervening years the 100m WR ⤵0.21s, 200m WR ⤵0.13s, 400m WR ⤵0.15s, 800m WR ⤵0.20s. All this after the unlimited era.

As for cyclists I always thought the old school cocktail =

EPO + Kenacort + Nandrolone + Fonzylane + Theostat + Caffeine + Actovegin

?

There's no proof, these are just white lefty hobby joggers who have been brainwashed from birth into holding a grudge against anything Europeans or Americans have ever achieved.

Their big argument against Coe is that he got ill. Then again, they think every elite runner for the last 100 years has been consuming steroids, crystal meth, blood doping to the gills...and yet with all their statistical expertise haven't a clue how to explain how even the 'dirty steroid 1960s amphetamine addicted' runners are virtually all alive, healthy, fit, and in their eighties.

At some stage Seb Coe must have had a really expensive hair transplant or transplants, without anybody noticing. Because I doubt very much there's many people who were consuming steroids for years in the 70s/80s who have a full head of hair like him at age 62 :

I presented an anomaly, that shouldn't happen (IMO) given a number of assumptions. The next step is not that assumptions graduate to conclusions without evidence, but that some of them should be suspected as FALSE and reconsidered. One possible explanation, is that "doping prevalence" is low among "5 continents", compared to Africans. I agree with you (without evidence), that despite recent doping surveys among participants self-admitting 29-57% using a banned substance of method, the prevalence of doping at the very top of distance running is not as high. Your outrage is misplaced. I did not prove, or attempt to prove, "everybody dopes", and did not prove, or attempt to prove that "Africans are genetically superior". I always attempt to argue that, whatever the prevalence, the effect of doping, at the top, is largely over-esimated, except for selected events like women's strength and middle distance events. BTW, the study that produced 57% was from the Pan-Arab Games, which does not include Kenya and Ethiopia. A similar survey, for the World Championships, produced smaller numbers, like 29-45%.

Coevett wrote:

But what is the argument or evidence that 'everybody dopes'? I still haven't seen it.

...

One study that Gary refers to again and again that 53% of runners at an African games admitted doping. That for him proves conclusively that everybody has doped everywhere at all times...

Are you dropping hints about Miruts Yifter and Edwin Moses?

Personally, I would have never suspected Coe as a crystal method user.