A very simple question

I agree that EPO can give one minute of advantage in 10000m for athletes running one minute slower than their potential due to mistakes in training.

Speaking about performances, people has to decide if it's more credible the opinion of some coach who had 9 athletes between 26'30" and 26'55" (all clean), based on FACTS that already really happened, or the opinion in somebody studying a category of subjects that have nothing to do with the best in the world.

Your figures while plausible are nonetheless speculative. No estimates of doping prevalence are definitive - they are estimates - but some are markedly higher than 20%. But what isn't speculative is that we see from those who have incurred doping violations that they are amongst the very top of the elites - championship winners and medallists like Ramzi, Kiprop, Jeptoo, Jebet, and so on - the list goes on. While you might wish to argue that performances that have not been achieved by a known doper are clean, this cannot be taken as fact. It is equally possible they are not.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are correct that findings can't necessarily be projected on to elites. But nor can they be discounted.

Maybe, but it would be a lie to call that a scientific discovery. We would call it speculation, belief, hypothesis, opinion, thinking, etc. about performance, coming from experts in the domain of anti-doping, and not in performance.

If it were only speculation I don't think the drugs would be banned. The research may not be definitive for all athletes - as Renato says, athletes are variable "responders" - but such research there is into this suggests the results are at least indicative if not fully conclusive.

rekrunner wrote:

I have seen claims that doping before EPO was "low-octane" and frequent claims that EPO was a powerful endurance drug game changer in the 1990s for endurance events, using East African performances as proofs by example. Do you find that funny too?

That was Armstrong's famous characterization -- EPO is "high-octane" while testosterone, steroids, HGH & corticosteroids are "low-octane." EPO, in his opinion, provides a 10% boost in performance vs 1% for the low-octane stuff. Of course, LA combined all the aforementioned PEDs in his special Ferrari cocktail that apparently had potent syngestics effects.

Which brings up the issue with the Kenyans and their high number of Norandrosterone & T positives compared to their low number of EPO positives/ABP cases - as mentioned by RC. This is perplexing when comparing this with Morocco - who's completely at the other end of the spectrum with a very high number of EPO positives and ABP cases (12 vs 5 for Kenya), and almost non-existent cases of androgen or GH use (over the last couple of years, I could find only one Moroccan non-EPO PED positive and that was one of their half-marathoners testing positive for ibutamoren - a GH peptide booster).

What's the analysis here? Are the Kenyans combining steroids and/or T with EPO (the popular stack of many dopers over the decades), and are better able to dodge an EPO positive (microdosing perhaps) while misjudging the glow times of the roids & T thus getting caught? Or are these Kenyans that arw being caught primarily doping with just androgens, i.e., "low-octane" doping? It doesn't make sense when their old rivals from North Africa are testing, and have historically tested, positive for EPO and blowing their passports left & right.

Also, on the game changer in the EPO era -- I cite Morocco as a good example. Take their 5000 times: Pre-90s only one Moroccan ran sub-13 (1987). We all know who that is and he's also under a cloud of suspicion. In a 10 year span from 1996 - 2006, eight(8) Moroccans ran sub-13 with five (5) running 12:50 or faster! After 06 and up through the passport era, only one Moroccan could break 13, and that was Iguider who just barely did (12:59) in 2015.

So, this sure looks like "proofs by example" for such a small country that produced that many fast 5000 guys in a relatively short period of time.

But it may not be a factually correct view of what EPO (or any other form of doping) can achieve. It essentially says that EPO cannot increase an athlete's endurance beyond what would be naturally achievable through training. This view has been formed without conducting research that would include doping the best-trained athletes with EPO and comparing their performances when clean. So it is ultimately a speculative position, without empirical foundation. Against that we have numerous cases over many years of doped athletes (including EPO) who have measurably improved. Some have become champions and world record holders. If using EPO when combined with training merely helped them to attain the limit to their natural abilities there could hardly be any objection to it - it would merely "short-cut" their improvements. Like altitude-training.

Doped to the Max wrote:

Schumacher was being asked ...what ... could be ...

You seem to have lost sight of your original favorite viewpoint.

We've come a long way from "what renowned scientists have discovered with their extensive research in the field".

You seem to have no real response to "Schumacher and Malm have made no discoveries about elite running performance. Just estimates."

Armstronglivs wrote:Your figures while plausible are nonetheless speculative. No estimates of doping prevalence are definitive - they are estimates - but some are markedly higher than 20%. But what isn't speculative is that we see from those who have incurred doping violations that they are amongst the very top of the elites - championship winners and medallists like Ramzi, Kiprop, Jeptoo, Jebet, and so on - the list goes on. While you might wish to argue that performances that have not been achieved by a known doper are clean, this cannot be taken as fact. It is equally possible they are not.

You still need to go beyond mere existence.

Otherwise you only prove the existence of fast people that also believed in doping.

rekrunner wrote:

You still need to go beyond mere existence.

Otherwise you only prove the existence of fast people that also believed in doping.

Over an extended period of time, indicating that the fast people and their coaches had success with doping. See also Epo-Aden with his large group.

As for your 20%. Nice try. Last time you admitted to at least 31% in the sport, and currently the long distance runners are preferentially caught. Highly unlikely then that long distance running has a particularly low doping prevalence among athletics.

In fact, in addition to A the published prevalence of (likely over) 44%, we have experimental data of B 15 - 18% for in-competition blood doping alone, and note that C many more are being caught for roids than for blood doping, and that D out-of-competition doping is more common because it's safer.

A + B + C + D: 50 - 60% doping is a conservative estimate.

rekrunner wrote:

Doped to the Max wrote:

Schumacher was being asked ...what ... could be ...

You seem to have lost sight of your original favorite viewpoint.

We've come a long way from "what renowned scientists have discovered with their extensive research in the field".

You seem to have no real response to "Schumacher and Malm have made no discoveries about elite running performance. Just estimates."

Well...obviously it doesn't seem to be your favorite viewpoint - you seem to repudiate every statement & opinion he gives on the performance benefit of EPO/blood transfusions.

I'm not sure why you always get contemptuous with me everytime I post something on Schumacher - would you prefer his opinions on those issues not be posted? Is his expert opinion in these AIU & CAS hearings too unsettling for you?

Given his credentials & expertise; Professor for Internal Medicine and Sports Medicine at the University of Freiburg, Germany, expert in sports hematology, team physician for the German Olympic Team since 2000, and senior member of the IAAF's anti-doping expert panel - I think his opinion on these matters is a very valuable one.

Doped to the Max wrote:

Well...obviously it doesn't seem to be your favorite viewpoint - you seem to repudiate every statement & opinion he gives on the performance benefit of EPO/blood transfusions.

I'm not sure why you always get contemptuous with me everytime I post something on Schumacher - would you prefer his opinions on those issues not be posted? Is his expert opinion in these AIU & CAS hearings too unsettling for you?

Given his credentials & expertise; Professor for Internal Medicine and Sports Medicine at the University of Freiburg, Germany, expert in sports hematology, team physician for the German Olympic Team since 2000, and senior member of the IAAF's anti-doping expert panel - I think his opinion on these matters is a very valuable one.

You brought Schumacher into this discussion. I don't doubt his medical credentials.

What discovery did he make about elite performance in his extensive research that would be relevant to this thread?

Does existence of doping over a period of time indicate success with doping? Not so sure. Over that same extended period, fast people and their coaches also had similar success without doping. Accepting your "conservative" 60% prevalence, that means 40% succeeded without doping. Now how do we map that success to Renato's threshold times in the selected distance events?

What am I supposed to see in Aden's group? All of his group of athletes tested negative for EPO.

20% was hypothetical, as I said upfront.

The lower bound of 31% estimated prevalence was a corrected aggregated self-reporting survey result combining men and women, sprints, field, distance, and walking, responding to a question about all banned drugs and/or methods. Imagine weighing all these athletes (or having them self-report their weight) and just publishing the average, and then trying to guess what the fastest distance men weigh.

The 31% is derived from an RRT technique called UQM. Subsequent research suggests that UQM can potentially inflate responses to sensitive questions, like doping prevalence, compared to other techniques, like Single Sample Count, network scale up, and social projection. This research suggests that even the lower bound estimate of 31% from UQM over-estimates the true doping prevalence.

Regarding your A+B+C+D conservative rationalization:

- A: the lower bound of 31.4% may still overestimate the true prevalence

- B is a reasonable estimate of in competition blood doping at two world championship events

- C: the importance of the ratio of athletes caught is not clear; it appears to measure the effectiveness of testing rather than measure prevalence

- D: is it more common than the estimate in B?

Renato Canova wrote:

Therefore, it's time to have a different consideration about times. Who thinks not possible running a Marathon under 2:10:00 without doping, is clearly somebody not knowing anything, whose only experience is to see some athlete training once per day and able running, maybe, 2:20, and of course not knowing what the real talent is.

It's like the owner of a normal car with a cilindrate of 1500cc, who doesn't know possible going very much faster, because never had the idea that cars with 3000cc can exist.

.

Well,Renato.....as long as we live I gonna say against you in this matter. :) I`m with you that it`s absolutely ridiculously to think that it`s not possible to run sub 2:10 marathon without doping, but when it comes to the main point what proper training really is, our opinions always gonna differ.You say it`s pace , doubles and high mileage up at altitude, I say it`s pace and just enough mileage to back up the quality workouts.The runner can train at the North Pole on a treadmill and still beat the standing world records if the most important basis is met, that the runner have superior talent!

rekrunner wrote:

The 31% is derived from an RRT technique called UQM. Subsequent research suggests that UQM can potentially inflate responses to sensitive questions, like doping prevalence, compared to other techniques, like Single Sample Count, network scale up, and social projection. This research suggests that even the lower bound estimate of 31% from UQM over-estimates the true doping prevalence.

You might want to look into this again (having I pointed that out before?):

a) what you call "subsequent research" is actually from an earlier paper, check the publication dates, in part from the same authors.

b) the suggestion of the earlier paper that "UQM can potentially inflate responses to sensitive questions" (note the "can potentially", this is faith) comes from the wishful thinking without evidence that the doping prevalence is low, done by a scientist paid for by WADA.

Last but not least, the 31% can't really be significantly overestimated, when blood doping alone amounts to 15 - 18%, a lot more are caught for other kinds of doping, and blood doping is by far the least convenient (injections/transfusions/treatment with centrifuges/storage in special refrigerators vs. swallowing of pills).

Doped to the Max wrote:

Also, on the game changer in the EPO era -- I cite Morocco as a good example. Take their 5000 times: Pre-90s only one Moroccan ran sub-13 (1987). We all know who that is and he's also under a cloud of suspicion. In a 10 year span from 1996 - 2006, eight(8) Moroccans ran sub-13 with five (5) running 12:50 or faster! After 06 and up through the passport era, only one Moroccan could break 13, and that was Iguider who just barely did (12:59) in 2015.

So, this sure looks like "proofs by example" for such a small country that produced that many fast 5000 guys in a relatively short period of time.

Nobody picked up on it, but I posted earlier in the thread a link to a thread where an Olympic standard North African athlete (training in Algeria) quite openly said that he was doping in the late 90s and that everybody was. There is nothing to suggest that he was making this up.

As I say, I think the chances of El Guerrouj being clean are very small. Whether he could have reached the same level anyway is debatable.

Anyhow, whilst Renato is making valid points, cheating is cheating whether or not it has any benefit. It is foolish to set anybody up as too much of a hero anyhow. One can believe that people are clean, e.g. I certainly believe that Therese Johaug and Ingebrigtsens are essentially clean (where essentially means that someone in their camp might try to push the boundaries with some medicine or other, but that morally they are not trying to cheat), but if they turned out not to be, it doesn't make any real difference to me.

Professional athletes may give some inspiration as to what is possible and how to achieve it, but ultimately it is what you yourself do that is important, and the moral choices you make, and it would just as important if professional athletics ceased to exist.

sure boomer wrote:

a separate question.

why do people in track consistently downplay the role of genetics/ "talent". I know myth-making doesn't pair well with "one or both parents are world -class athletes" .

Yes training properly is key (and the world is littered with offspring of athletes who haven't done anything ).

The myth of the proud hard working distance runner. How many people here start posts with "I don't have any talent but..." If you can run sub 5 in middle school you have talent. If you ran 9:30 2m in HS you have talent. If you ran a 2:15 marathon... well you get the picture.

Everyone wants to think it was hard work. Typical of Americans they don't realize they were born on third base.

Just because some western runners went fast doesn't mean they're not doping and therefore eastern and African runners don't dope either. Quite the contrary, now there's even more suspicious western runners.

This straw man Renato is arguing with must not have heard about Alberto being banned. This straw man thinks Nike's teams are clean as the driven snow.

casual obsever wrote:

You might want to look into this again (having I pointed that out before?):

a) what you call "subsequent research" is actually from an earlier paper, check the publication dates, in part from the same authors.

b) the suggestion of the earlier paper that "UQM can potentially inflate responses to sensitive questions" (note the "can potentially", this is faith) comes from the wishful thinking without evidence that the doping prevalence is low, done by a scientist paid for by WADA.

Last but not least, the 31% can't really be significantly overestimated, when blood doping alone amounts to 15 - 18%, a lot more are caught for other kinds of doping, and blood doping is by far the least convenient (injections/transfusions/treatment with centrifuges/storage in special refrigerators vs. swallowing of pills).

No need for me to look at this again (I don't recall you ever commenting on this paper):

a) 2013 comes after 2011. The UQM paper's publication was delayed. I assume the research was conducted much earlier.

b) Nonsense. The evidence is self-contained in the paper. In this paper on UK and Irish athletes, they used 4 competing techniques to estimate doping prevalence. Three of them gave similar estimates around 15-25%, while UQM gave an estimate of 58%. The "can potentially" depends on which of these techniques are the most accurate -- a question that remains open. But it is 3 to 1 against UQM.

Until the UQM results can be corroborated and confirmed as reasonably representative and accurate, they should be taken with a grain of salt. The main issue is the unknown magnitude and nature of non-compliance with the survey.

I'm still not understanding the significance of "a lot more are caught for other kinds of doping". Being caught indicates testing effectiveness, not doping prevalence.

Renato Canova wrote:

I agree that EPO can give one minute of advantage in 10000m for athletes running one minute slower than their potential due to mistakes in training.

Speaking about performances, people has to decide if it's more credible the opinion of some coach who had 9 athletes between 26'30" and 26'55" (all clean), based on FACTS that already really happened, or the opinion in somebody studying a category of subjects that have nothing to do with the best in the world.

You are just speculating Renato. Furthermore, you can't know with absolute certainty that these

9 athletes running 26:30-26:55 all were clean. I'm convinced that a lot of the world's best coaches

would have similar results if they were coaches for the same number of years and got the same opportunity to pick the raisins out of the cake.

So good it needs a second posting