Is East African Distance Runnng Superiority a myth & actually fuelled by EPO

JonO. wrote:

Tour de Dope wrote:

Why don't you contact LA and tell him about your scientific breakthrough, and that EPO/blood doping had nothing to do with his 7 Tour victories...if he agrees we'll all eat crow & crown you science expert. ?

How would that work?

"Hey Lance, you know your coach Michele Ferrari told you that your threshold had to be 6.7 watts per kilo and that you had to get your hematocrit up to 50 to get there? Well he was wrong. Your threshold was actually 6.0 even after you doped?"

I can't see that conversation going well, can you? Lance will maybe figure it out in time, when those of us who have a better understanding how how power stats are made up, manipulated and misinterpreted, reach a critical mass and the rush to find the next (fanstasy) wonder drug is on.

Lmao

You can feign amusement all you want, but I know my cycling stats and I know that the numbers stated for EPO doping are ridiculous.

And I have a legitimate concern in asking journalists to take some responsibilty for this misinformation.

It can't continue. Not on my watch.

So Weldon and Robert Johnson, Jonathan Gault and others here, show some responsibilty for addressing the problem of misinformantion instead of hyping up the stupidity. What have you got to lose? Your credibility or your pride?

You wont lose either if you encourage intelligent debate.

It looks odd to me that you are telling me what I "need" to pay attention to, as if I could be swayed by more opinion without basis. So Coevett said: "Salazar voicing his opinion that the sudden improvement in (African) times was down to EPO." And then Coevett provided the real quote which said: "Without mentioning EPO, Alberto Salazar voices the skepticism..." Why would I *need* to pay attention to something that Salazar didn't even say? This reflects Coevett's poor ability to accurately interpret and repeat what is written. And it reflects poorly on you to recommend this is something I need to pay attention to.

On the outside looking in wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Anyway, I was reading an interesting article from Sports Illustrated in the 1990s the other day. Includes Salazar voicing his opinion that the sudden improvement in (African) times was down to EPO. Also that Komen was bragging that he would be able to run the 5000 in 12:24.

Our esteemed statiscian rekrunner needs to pay attention to this. I believe he has the upmost respect for Salazar, unless of course he wants to pull that "logical fallacies" BS with the legendary coach.

Yes, that's what I wanted. I'm talking about Kenyans in an East African thread. I think I was very specific. I asked what you thought was missing. You say "his theories", but he was relaying the results of Danish researchers, among other non-scientific experiences of John Manners, and a search for Sudanese athletes of Nilotic build. I'm didn't defend Epstein, but wondering if there is some substance in your attack of Epstein. You've had three tries to offer something of substance, and my assessment of your opinion of Epstein highly depends on that. I don't think a criticisms about sprinters, sickle cell anemia, 400m runners, or US athletes pursuing basketball or football is pertinent to why Kenyans have so many superior performances and performers.

ironside wrote:

You wanted me to narrow my criticism of Epstein's book to his theories of Kenyas. ...

Why do you want to defend him, Epstein?...

Are we disagreeing with Epstein's flaws? You look definitely no more well versed than Epstein if you site Epstein.

All what I was saying regarding western hemisphere comes back around to Kenya. ....

JonO. wrote:

And lots of much slower times were recorded by EPO doped riders too. Weather conditions and racing conditions.

22 kmh on Alpe d'Huez is not 6.97 watt per kilo not anywhere close. To keep stating that it is is just compounding the stupidity. And it is fantastically stupid.

Nobody ever said EPO makes everyone into a champion.

Stop beating that second statement to death. It means nothing compared to the big picture.

JonO. wrote:

You can feign amusement all you want, but I know my cycling stats and I know that the numbers stated for EPO doping are ridiculous.

And I have a legitimate concern in asking journalists to take some responsibilty for this misinformation.

It can't continue. Not on my watch.

So Weldon and Robert Johnson, Jonathan Gault and others here, show some responsibilty for addressing the problem of misinformantion instead of hyping up the stupidity. What have you got to lose? Your credibility or your pride?

You wont lose either if you encourage intelligent debate.

Just stop it.

You're not a scientist. Leave it to the experts and those who listen to them.

"It can't continue. Not on my watch." LOL Yeah, you really wield a lot of clout.

Of course Lance Armstrong believes that EPO, he calls it "high octane" and "a 10%-er", helped him win 7 Tours -- Lance's belief is a big part of why it helped. Regarding Lance Armstrong and the role of doping, surely Ferrari knows the science better. Here's is what he said on the topic:

Hang on, hang on a minute. 9-10 liters of blood is sh!tloads, to increase Hb mass by that amount he would have to spend weeks in the Himalayas at 5000m and there in no way he could do sufficient training. Has it ever occurred to you and JO that Ferrari is trying to distance himself Armstrong? The truth is whatever doping regime he put in place in 1998, changed him from pack rider to invincible (sounds like Mo c2010).

Tour de Dope wrote:

C'mon man...quit clowning around with everyone (you pop on here every 3 - 4 months with your same line of nonsense). 24 out of the top 35 fastest times up Alpe d'Huez are involving riders implicated in doping. And only 3 riders in the top 35 posted their time in the pre-90s, presumably before the EPO abuse era:

http://www.stickybottle.com/blogs/cycling-fastest-times-alpe-dhuez/

And here's Lance talking to the college kids at CU a couple of years ago on the massive benefits ("10%") he received from EPO.

https://youtu.be/fshoz6cnKPY

Why don't you contact LA and tell him about your scientific breakthrough, and that EPO/blood doping had nothing to do with his 7 Tour victories...if he agrees we'll all eat crow & crown you science expert. ?

This is outrageous, how dare you enter a complex debate and display overwhelming evidence. Totally uncalled for ?

Lance @ 3:53 is pretty irrefutable.

Who would have guessed that cycling times stopped improving and then went backwards (with newer technology)? I wonder why?

rekrunner wrote:

Of course Lance Armstrong believes that EPO, he calls it "high octane" and "a 10%-er", helped him win 7 Tours -- Lance's belief is a big part of why it helped.

Regarding Lance Armstrong and the role of doping, surely Ferrari knows the science better. Here's is what he said on the topic:

C'mon rekrunner...you're clowning around these days as much as your buddy "JO." Lol.

I agree with Subway...Dr. "O2-vector doping" is wanting to distance himself from LA. He makes those ridiculous comments only about Armstrong (he's doped dozens of cyclists over his career) and yet later on gets sentenced to 18 months by an Italian court for doping an Italian junior biathlete! Ridiculous! He also famous for stating “EPO is not dangerous, it's the abuse that is. It's also dangerous to drink 10 liters of orange juice,” Lol.

And so Ferrari is saying that LA didn't need to dope to win his 7 Tours, then why didn't he say that about two (2) of his prized pupils; Riis (Tour winner) & Berzin (Giro winner) that he doped to the gills while he was team doctor at Gewiss–Ballan?

And you're sharp as a tack rekrunner...you're absolutely right that Ferrari surely "knows the science." So well in fact, that the Spanish Federation hired Ferrari and provided the "EPO" for the training of the 1996 Olympics track cyclists. ?

Lance was the one taking it. He knows better than the doctor.

The doctor asks you how you feel, he doesn't tell you how he thinks you should feel.

Excellent summary. +1

JonO. wrote:

I can't see that conversation going well, can you? Lance will maybe figure it out in time, when those of us who have a better understanding how how power stats are made up, manipulated and misinterpreted, reach a critical mass and the rush to find the next (fanstasy) wonder drug is on.

Well, in 15 years of posting you've managed to reach a critical mass of 1.

JonO. wrote:

Evidence?

We'll show you ours if you show us yours...

dumas wrote:

JonO. wrote:

I can't see that conversation going well, can you? Lance will maybe figure it out in time, when those of us who have a better understanding how how power stats are made up, manipulated and misinterpreted, reach a critical mass and the rush to find the next (fanstasy) wonder drug is on.

Well, in 15 years of posting you've managed to reach a critical mass of 1.

Now that's funny! ?

you're not debating intelligently wrote:

JonO. wrote:

You can feign amusement all you want, but I know my cycling stats and I know that the numbers stated for EPO doping are ridiculous.

And I have a legitimate concern in asking journalists to take some responsibilty for this misinformation.

It can't continue. Not on my watch.

So Weldon and Robert Johnson, Jonathan Gault and others here, show some responsibilty for addressing the problem of misinformantion instead of hyping up the stupidity. What have you got to lose? Your credibility or your pride?

You wont lose either if you encourage intelligent debate.

Just stop it.

You're not a scientist. Leave it to the experts and those who listen to them.

"It can't continue. Not on my watch." LOL Yeah, you really wield a lot of clout.

Which scientists? Show me one who sees the big picture. Not Ross Tucker. Someone who actually knows the difference between good and bad science.

Good luck with that, I haven't found that person.

EPO is not a performance enhancer. No drug is. The whole concept is a social construct. People want to believe a mythology and the so called PED phenomenon supplies that desperate need.

It makes everyone faster wrote:

JonO. wrote:

And lots of much slower times were recorded by EPO doped riders too. Weather conditions and racing conditions.

22 kmh on Alpe d'Huez is not 6.97 watt per kilo not anywhere close. To keep stating that it is is just compounding the stupidity. And it is fantastically stupid.

Nobody ever said EPO makes everyone into a champion.

Stop beating that second statement to death. It means nothing compared to the big picture.

You aren't getting it. Lance's own fastest ascent of Alpe d'Huez highlight the delusional belief that EPO is a performance enhancer. I know my cycling stats. You evidently don't know or care and probably never will. Repeating the nonsense that his power output was more than 10% higher than it actually was over and over as journalists do (including cycling journalists who should know better) is just ridiculous.

I'm not sure where you get your information. Endurance athletes can have significantly higher blood volumes than normal. According to some standard tables, a few weeks at 5000m will increase your Hgb about 5.5 g/dl, or about 40% increase for a male athlete at 14 g/dl. Raising it 5-10% only requires an altitude of 2000-2500m. I don't know if it is possible for Ferrari to distance himself from Armstrong, or if downplaying the contribution of doping (assuming for the sake of argument) could achieve that. I consider that both Ferrari and Armstrong are not neutral, and Armstrong is surely less informed. We should look for independent verification, or take any comment with a grain of salt. Armstrong's invincibility was a team effort. Just my opinion, but I don't believe even a fully doped Armstrong could have won a single tour in adversity, the way Lemond did in 1986, against Hinault, or Contador in 2009 against Armstrong, without complete team support and rivalry for team leadership.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Hang on, hang on a minute. 9-10 liters of blood is sh!tloads, to increase Hb mass by that amount he would have to spend weeks in the Himalayas at 5000m and there in no way he could do sufficient training. Has it ever occurred to you and JO that Ferrari is trying to distance himself Armstrong? The truth is whatever doping regime he put in place in 1998, changed him from pack rider to invincible (sounds like Mo c2010).

Clown. Lol. Let's be careful here, my expressed doubts about EPO producing a large performance effect are limited to running, for physiological reasons that are different to cycling, so don't assume I'm trying to say the same thing about Armstrong, or saying that Ferrari was not involved in doping his athletes. Ferrari's comments were a reaction to Lance's comments. I'm not aware that Riis and Berzin ever made any similar comments, such that Ferrari would have an opportunity to say they were wrong. Also cyclists used higher dosages in the 1990s, before any EPO test, and before WADA, with much higher increases (Hct increases between 8-27%). Ferrari's statement might be true for Armstrong, at least post 2000, when EPO dosage was reduced to a level that Ferrari claimed could also be achieved with altitude alone, but not for Riis and Berzin in the 1990s, when dosages allowed Hct up to 60%.