Athletics, when doping is the default

Can't Believe What I'm Hearing With Al Sal wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

An internationally leading coach of world-beating athletes has just been busted for doping. A succinct commentary on the state of the sport.

I wonder if this will be a big blow to rekrunner? He's defended Al Sal's athletes in the past - particularly the ones who have run very fast times after the ABP was implemented in 2009.

Yes somewhere Rekrunner is quietly crying into his cornflakes.

How dirty is Sir Mobot? Coaches = Jama, Al Sal and Paula's coach. The trifecta.

Can't Believe What I'm Hearing With Al Sal wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

An internationally leading coach of world-beating athletes has just been busted for doping. A succinct commentary on the state of the sport.

I wonder if this will be a big blow to rekrunner? He's defended Al Sal's athletes in the past - particularly the ones who have run very fast times after the ABP was implemented in 2009.

Not at all. I will comment later, but not in this thread.

It's a shame that Salazar is clouding this attempted discussion of the significance of doping in men's elite marathon performance. You can add Salazar and supply cabinet of drugs, if it is relevant to showing they were a significant factor to any fast marathon performances. The question of potential or realized performance enhancement is decided a priori, and cannot be part of any USADA doping accusation or defence. WADA bans possession or use or trafficking, with no consideration of expected, potential, or realized performance. And of course, athletes and coaches use many drugs on a slim and speculative basis.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Come now, rekrunner - the "chance" of cloudiness! So banned drugs like EPO offer only the "chance" they are performance enhancing? We might add to that the range of drugs that Salazar was administering to his athletes - and this is a former marathon runner assisting distance runners - that included testosterone, above the limit levels of carnitine and other prescription drugs. I don't think the USADA would have accepted a defence that there was only a "chance" that these drugs were performance enhancing - and nor would Salazar and those of his athletes who took the drugs have used them on such a slim and speculative basis. We see an emerging cyclone of drug-taking in this sport but for you it is only a "chance of cloudiness".

Subway Surfers wrote:

Can't Believe What I'm Hearing With Al Sal wrote:

I wonder if this will be a big blow to rekrunner? He's defended Al Sal's athletes in the past - particularly the ones who have run very fast times after the ABP was implemented in 2009.

Yes somewhere Rekrunner is quietly crying into his cornflakes.

Idiot. He replied before you posted.

Why do you obfuscate so much? Aden is not being charged with administering "non-doping substances" - he's being charged with administering doping products per the prosecutor's petition/affidavit. Do I need to post that link again from the El País story that highlighted the details of the petition? (I will anyway. Lol).

Do you not comprehend what the prosecutor is charging Aden with? He's being charged with administering "eight types of substances and medications to improve their performance." Medications = pharmatecuticals = doping products (nothing new there). And because Aden says he was administering "vitamins" (Lol) you run with that cheesy excuse and then falsely claim that the Spanish authorities are charging Aden with administering "non-doping products."

I'm going to give you the ole cliche: C'mon...Man! ?

Rekrunner, neither the USADA nor WADA are going to penalise athletes or coaches on the basis that doping is of notional rather than actual benefit. No one - least of all the sportsmen and women involved - would accept that. It is a crucially weak part of your argument, that doping may not assist marathon athletes. Sports would not accept policing or sanction without legitimate cause.

What are you basing that on? Are you saying the "effectiveness" is low with marathon runners because there's a lack of convicted dopers with the top performers (suggesting they're clean?) while most of the convicted dopers are from slower performers? So are you basing this more on the lack of convicted dopers at the top or more so with a prevalence of convicted dopers outside the top 100? (which implies that every elite marathoner runner who uses PEDs should automatically be a top 100 performer?). Provide your analysis on this - here's the top 3 fastest Moroccan marathoners of all time:

1. Jaouad Gharib 2:05:27

2. Abderrahim Goumri 2:05:30 (*ABP - hematological violation).

3. Abderrahime Bouramdane 2:07:33 (*ABP - hematological violation).

Gharib & Goumri fall in the top 100. Gourmi is a convicted doper and there's nothing on Gharib. Do you consider Gharib's time clean and not suspicious because he hasn't been busted like his two comrades have been?

Gourmi's time is also in the top 100 but he's a convicted doper. So in this case was doping effective for him because he ran a top 100 time?

Bouramdane, also a convicted doper, ran a time outside the top 100 and 2 minutes slower than the other two. Does this suggest doping was ineffective for him because he was outside the top 100 and so much slower than the other two?

The basis of calling something a logical scenario is logic.

You continue to avoid the subject.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Rekrunner, neither the USADA nor WADA are going to penalise athletes or coaches on the basis that doping is of notional rather than actual benefit. No one - least of all the sportsmen and women involved - would accept that. It is a crucially weak part of your argument, that doping may not assist marathon athletes. Sports would not accept policing or sanction without legitimate cause.

Hi Renato!

Right -- the prosecutor said things that were not in earlier reports.

Let's Tell It Like It Is wrote:

Why do you obfuscate so much? Aden is not being charged with administering "non-doping substances" - he's being charged with administering doping products per the prosecutor's petition/affidavit. Do I need to post that link again from the El País story that highlighted the details of the petition? (I will anyway. Lol).

Do you not comprehend what the prosecutor is charging Aden with? He's being charged with administering "eight types of substances and medications to improve their performance." Medications = pharmatecuticals = doping products (nothing new there). And because Aden says he was administering "vitamins" (Lol) you run with that cheesy excuse and then falsely claim that the Spanish authorities are charging Aden with administering "non-doping products."

I'm going to give you the ole cliche: C'mon...Man! ?

rekrunner wrote:

You continue to avoid the subject.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Rekrunner, neither the USADA nor WADA are going to penalise athletes or coaches on the basis that doping is of notional rather than actual benefit. No one - least of all the sportsmen and women involved - would accept that. It is a crucially weak part of your argument, that doping may not assist marathon athletes. Sports would not accept policing or sanction without legitimate cause.

I'm not avoiding the subject; I'm avoiding calling you a doping apologist for demanding proof that doping works, especially on marathon runners. Marathon runners are among those choosing to dope. They know why.

I think you still don't understand what I asked for. For the sake of the discussion, let's agree that doping works for marathon runners.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'm not avoiding the subject; I'm avoiding calling you a doping apologist for demanding proof that doping works, especially on marathon runners. Marathon runners are among those choosing to dope. They know why.

rekrunner wrote:

I think you still don't understand what I asked for.

For the sake of the discussion, let's agree that doping works for marathon runners.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'm not avoiding the subject; I'm avoiding calling you a doping apologist for demanding proof that doping works, especially on marathon runners. Marathon runners are among those choosing to dope. They know why.

If you want to know how much it works for marathon runners - then that is the question. For reasons I stated earlier, I don't believe we can have access to data for known doped and clean performances - and especially in the same athletes - to obtain a definitive answer. But, for a variety of reasons - too lengthy to recite here - I'll go with the view that there will be a benefit and it will be significant. Dopers likely agree.

rekrunner wrote:

I think you still don't understand what I asked for.

For the sake of the discussion, let's agree that doping works for marathon runners.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'm not avoiding the subject; I'm avoiding calling you a doping apologist for demanding proof that doping works, especially on marathon runners. Marathon runners are among those choosing to dope. They know why.

Here you go rekrunner: Al Sal back in 1998 was quoted about the performance effect of androgens and HGH with elites:

"In 1998, as American distance running sagged, Salazar pointed a finger at athletes from “third world countries” who were “willing to take steroids and human-growth hormones” because their livelihoods depended on it."

“There’s no way you can compete without them,” Salazar said of performance-enhancing drugs. “It’s worth 45 seconds in the 10 kilometers and two minutes in the marathon.”

And he says; "There's no way you can compete without them." Looks like casual observer was right all along that the prevalence of doping is very high with elites (I think you owe him an apology. ?).

It would have also been interesting to get his take on EPO with elites. And we know that many dopers combine EPO/blood transfusions with androgens and/or HGH as the preferred PED cocktail for running.

If doping is only worth 2 minutes, we must look to more significant non-doping factors to explain the 4+ minute difference since 1998, when Salazar expressed his belief without basis, when Da Costa ran 2:06:05. 2:06:05 appears to be a challenging barrier in the last 21 years outside of East Africa: Only 2 non-Africans (not counting 1 wind-aided performance) have run faster. Moen's 2:05:48 is 17 seconds faster. 4 Moroccans have run faster, with Gharib's 2:05:27 38 seconds faster. 68 East Africans and 3 Moroccans have run faster (94x and 4x respectively) than Moen's 2:05:48, with Bekele and Kipchoge more than 4 minutes faster. Unfortunately we don't know which if any of these performances are clean, or dirty, so we can create many different scenarios, each one leading to some implications putting a heavy strain on some common assumptions. For example, If Moens is clean, that means the fastest non-Africans can hope for is 2:03:48, if they start taking steroids and HGH. 9 East Africans have now run faster than 2:03:48 -- 11 if you count wind-aided Boston. If Bekele is dirty, that means that he can run 2:03:41 clean -- suggesting a clean Bekele can beat all doped non-Africans. If Moens is dirty, then 2:05:48 approximates a non-African performance ceiling and similarly 2:05:27 is a Moroccan ceiling. When we look at these performaces, what does this suggest about the assumptions of high prevelance of doping among non-Africans and Moroccans, combined with a significant effect from doping, while denying that one group of people are naturally superior? What is it I should apologize to "casual" for? Quoting Key Points from a study and making him look bad? Sorry. I have not actually seen anything that estimates doping prevelance for just the men's marathon. The closest statistic I've seen is that only 1 out of 9 medals won (men and women) were considered "suspicious" by Ashenden/Parisotto, suggesting a mere 11% prevalence of "blood doping" among World Champion and Olympic medal winners in the marathon over a 12 year period. The several high profile busts and suspicions in the women's marathon, suggests an even lower prevalence for the men. If medal winning prevelance is higher than general prevalence, this suggests that general doping prevalence among the men's marathon must be quite low. Interesting discussion. Thanks.

I'm always impressed by an argument that begins as an apparently open inquiry into a question and ends with the answer that you intend at the outset, which is that marathon running has the likely lowest incidence of doping in any sport. If you'll believe that you'll believe anything.

It is also somewhat inconsistent with the fact that many if not most top marathoners are also track athletes, and track has one of the highest incidences of estimated doping.

Doping prevalence among the men's marathon isn't low with Morocco. Looking at the data there are over a dozen convicted dopers as either primary marathoners or those who transitioned from the track later on in their careers. Most are for either EPO or ABP-hematological infractions (a few for steroids and they could have been combining it with O2-vector doping).

In addition, Malm et al states about a four minute improvement in the marathon (~3%) with either EPO or transfusions as the method of blood manipulation:

"Initially, blood transfusion was used to enhance military aviation pilots’ work capacity to fly at high altitude during WWII, when pressurized cockpits were not used [21]. Later, submaximal [22] and maximal [23] running performance was shown to improve with blood transfusion. The discovery of erythropoietin (EPO) [24] simplified blood doping in sports, supplementing blood donation, storage and re-infusion. Similar performance enhancements of 6–12% could now be achieved by a simple recombinant human (rh) EPO injection [25–27]. In a review on blood doping published in 1989, Jones and Tunstall [28] describe increases in performance and VO2max ranging between 0% and 40%, depending on the subjects included and methods used for both testing and doping. From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [29–31]. This enhancement is equivalent to, for example, seven minutes faster winning time in the 90 km cross country ski race Vasaloppet, 20–30 seconds faster time in any given 5000 m run at world class level, and four minutes faster finishing time in a marathon race. In cycling, a 3% increase in performance translate to a more than two hour faster winning time in Tour de France 2014."

Using some of the Moroccan doped times and adjusted for the four minutes from Malm et al:

Abderrahim Goumri 2:05:30 (*ABP - hematological) - 2:09:30

Abderrahime Bouramdane 2:07:33 (*ABP - hematological) - 2:11:33

Adil Annani 2:07:43 (*ABP - hematological) - 2:11:43

Mohamed El Hachimi 2:08:17 (*CERA) - 2:12:17

Four (4) minutes is huge in the marathon. Bouramdane, Annani nor El Hachimi wouldn't have made the 2020 Olympic "A" standard of 2:11.30. And Gourmi goes from a 2:09 runner into the top 100 all-time best category.