Katir confirms what Ramzi already told us - full throttle EPO improves 1500m times by 8 - 10 seconds

Emily Swatson wrote:

Keep them coming. I command you.

How many different names have you posted under already in this thread alone? Is Emily Swatson supposed to be a white version of Cleopatra Jones? Do you change into women's clothes when you post under her name?

There is too much yardage between the goal posts, folks. Nothing to see with PISS ANT. Stop interacting with him.

Bergenkampf wrote:

Passant wrote:

You afraid that Katir repeat what did Aouita/Morceli/El G. before

and the doubt is persisting on you.

You try to convince yourself with the EPO argument

but you are in full throttle of doubt.

Stay with the doubt and the angoisse until the next season dreaming that Katir will be caught or your favorite out class him...

Yes, those of us who wish to see some integrity in the sport would prefer not to see another 3:35 North African also-ran turn himself into a 'legend' via doping. We hoped those days were gone.

And you are posting three runners caught running for Bahrain and you say they are Moroccan? This is your integrity.

If I was you, I would care about Coe place in the future ... well more and more British traces wiped from the international instances.

You are worried about Africa gain of importance in the worldwide Athletic instances, whish automatically will diminish the British impact on the global decisions.

Your future is already written...

The one(s) who doctored up Asbel Kiprop.

@Piss ant - is this like the Bahrani Moroccan who finished high up in the marathon in Tokyo and you were happy to claim him as Moroccan...until he got busted?

rekrunner wrote:

Waterloo1815kgl wrote:

I agree, plus we saw packs of elite runners getting really fast all at the same time in the 90's...once the dope is out everyone is trying to out sauce the others like cycling.

These ideas about the powerful gains from doping are more mythology than proven observations. Who showed the gains could even be as much as 5 seconds for these elite performances?

You say “everyone is trying to out sauce the others”, but in the ‘90s, we did not see any non-African elite runners getting *really* fast, but only athletes from limited high altitude regions in East African, and a handful of North Africans.

If it was like cycling, we would have seen fast Americans, Germans, Spanish, Kazahks, etc.

Cycling is the opposite of running: fast non-Africans with no fast Africans.

I disagree with Armstrong here - RekRunner is right when he says not all countries showed the same big leap in performances during the classic EPO era. The countries that did, such as Morocco and Kenya later saw a huge number of doping positives when testing became available, and a similar decline in times. The countries that didn't see a sharp improvement in performances , such as GB and Australia, did not see a spate of doping positives when EPO testing became available, and their performances actually steadily improved AFTER the EPO era (as we witnessed in the Tokyo Men's final).

The problem is that RekRunner draws the conclusion that EPO doesn't work from this, rather than the mind blowingly obvious conclusion that doping was much, much worse in places like Kenya and Morocco that saw the biggest increases in performance (and later EPO positives). He does so on a value judgement that it would be racist to consider that Kenya or Moroccoa have a worse doping problem than GB or NZ.

As for RekRunner/RestRunner's assertion that no scientist has proven that every 0.0001% of an elite Kenyan runner's improvement was due to EPO, well there was a scientific study undertaken specifically to refute Canova's (and you and other LetsRun doping apologists) assertion that EPO doesn't work on elite Kenyans. This is good enough for me and for most people.

Bergenkampf wrote:

Emily Swatson wrote:

Keep them coming. I command you.

How many different names have you posted under already in this thread alone? Is Emily Swatson supposed to be a white version of Cleopatra Jones? Do you change into women's clothes when you post under her name?

One handle in this thread, Coevett, Bilbo, Bergkampf, Number 32, The Spade Detector, Raddiisson, etc.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Emily Swatson wrote:

Good boy, obeying my command.

Says the baboon when it is fed a peanut.

I like your way of signing off. "Says the baboon". Enjoy the peanut.

Baboonlivs LOL

Bilbo Baggins the Fourth wrote:

well there was a scientific study undertaken specifically to refute Canova's (and you and other LetsRun doping apologists) assertion that EPO doesn't work on elite Kenyans.

https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a20845413/study-kenyans-get-performance-boost-from-epo/

That is not a scientific study; it's a WADA-funded research.

That was not undertaken specifically to refute Canova's assertion that EPO doesn't work on elite Kenyans. The author of the article simply makes a connection between Canova's claims and the research's results.

Anti-doping is a noble cause.

Lying and fabricating data to make one's point only ruins the anti-doping fighters credibility.

Don't do it.

This really sounds like Lance Armstrong himself. So full of

sxit.

Emily Swatson wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Says the baboon when it is fed a peanut.

I like your way of signing off. "Says the baboon". Enjoy the peanut.

Baboonlivs LOL

They also like to play with their excrement. As you show.

My point was that doping significantly improves the level of the individual athlete - wherever they come from. I wasn't addressing your point that doping has been much more widespread in some countries than others. That I agree with. Also, because there is no consistent baseline for doping we can only estimate its effects on top athletes. But that is not saying it therefore has none - or, alternatively, is definitively measurable by historical performances by national groups. Doping is ultimately an individual act. That is why I say it doesn't really matter whether the advantage gained is 5-10 - or even 15 secs in a given race. It will be in there somewhere, because its effects are far from neutral or illusory (the rekrunner delusion).

Oooh that started out promising.

It’s tempting to cherry pick GB and Australia and Morocco and attempt to argue that these few examples form the general rule.

But the countries that did not see sharp improvements goes far beyond GB and Australia. Historically, for nearly three decades spanning the entire EPO era, only a few of the very best non-African athletes from all countries in 5 continents saw modest leaps in performance from the ‘80s. This includes low-doping countries like GB and Australia and Japan, but also countries with high doping busts like Russia, Belarus, Turkey, Greece, India and China. Some of these countries achieved better success but only with their women, or in non-running events like race-walking.

We also saw that Kenyans and Ethiopians who moved to countries with testing were still among the best. One of the best Brits is Somalian.

With all these counter-examples, perhaps the correlation between elite leaps of performance, and doping, and testing is not as obvious as is widely believed, while the correlation between ethnic origin is unmistakably high.

This could only be a problem if I ever drew that conclusion. It is a simplified dumbing down of my argument.

One conclusion I draw is that we have yet to reliably observe “EPO works” for these elite runners at bettering their best performances.

It’s also mindblowingly obvious that countries with the biggest doping problems, like Russia, did not see comparable leaps in performance like the Kenyans and Moroccans, but rather their performances compare to GB and NZ.

Another conclusion I draw is that for non-elite athletes/performances, hi-lo altitude studies show similar gains in similar subjects as EPO and blood doping studies. hi-hi studies also show gains over lo-lo training. This still doesn’t guarantee what benefits we should expect to see for elite athletes.

I note here that East Africans live and train at altitude, so there may be some inherit EPO-like benefits without using EPO or blood-doping that cannot be ignored.

What did I assert? You asserted that all of Ramzi’s 9-second improvement was entirely due to EPO.

Some points about Canova and your scientific study:

- It might be good enough for you and most people, but that doesn’t make it good.

- Like Kirk never said “Beam me up Scotty”, Canova didn’t say what you allege the study refuted. It’s another dumbed down scarecrow.

- The Kenyans in that study had times predicting 8m00s for 3000m time trials. Yet the Kenyans improved from 9m00s to 8m30s over the duration of the study.

- In other words, the scientists used EPO to help these Kenyans improve from their 2 hour race pace to their 1 hour race pace for less than 9 minutes. You don’t need EPO to tempo a 3K time-trial. This is confirmed by the RPE measurements taken during the time trials — the Kenyans were not trying to run fast.

Due to the poor study design, we cannot compare the observed gains against a control group, as there was none, and we cannot conclude that EPO would help these Kenyans run faster 3000m faster than their predicted 3000m pace of 8m00s. It was a missed opportunity.

Armstronglivs wrote:

My point was that doping significantly improves the level of the individual athlete - wherever they come from. I wasn't addressing your point that doping has been much more widespread in some countries than others. That I agree with. Also, because there is no consistent baseline for doping we can only estimate its effects on top athletes. But that is not saying it therefore has none - or, alternatively, is definitively measurable by historical performances by national groups. Doping is ultimately an individual act. That is why I say it doesn't really matter whether the advantage gained is 5-10 - or even 15 secs in a given race. It will be in there somewhere, because its effects are far from neutral or illusory (the rekrunner delusion).

You should see EPO as an optimization problem and not a maximization problem.

If EPO is too low, you will go slow, due to lack of oxygen in the muscles, caused by anemia.

If EPO is too high, you will go slow, due to lack of oxygen in the muscles, caused by thick blood inhibiting flow.

Whether you improve, stagnate, or regress, depends on your start point, and your end point.

It amuses me that you seem to speak from experience - either as a doper, or having known dopers. Yet you have no such experience. None of your claims about the effects of EPO are based on personal knowledge or, alternatively, on data derived from comprehensive analysis of athletes who dope, since none subject themselves to scientific studies. So your claims about "optimization" and "maximization" are mere speculation on your part. You can be no more definitive in your views than anyone else here.

Pepperoni wrote:

This really sounds like Lance Armstrong himself. So full of

sxit.

You mean EPO.

rekrunner wrote:

- In other words, the scientists used EPO to help these Kenyans improve from their 2 hour race pace to their 1 hour race pace for less than 9 minutes. You don’t need EPO to tempo a 3K time-trial. This is confirmed by the RPE measurements taken during the time trials — the Kenyans were not trying to run fast.

In addition to that, not only were both the test runs relatively easy, the Kenyans acknowledged that their 5% faster run after EPO felt subjectively harder (RPE 14.6 vs. 16.1), ie. they were more exhausted/ felt sh*ttier.

No control group, therefore no way to know what the difference would've been simply running two 3k time trials with the latter one feeling harder only due to increased extra effort with no EPO in the protocol whatsoever.

sepreh wrote:

To beat a dead horse, Katie's background is southern Europe. He grew up in Spain and looks and acts Spanish.

Katir looks Spanish? Lol

Armstronglivs wrote:

It amuses me that you seem to speak from experience - either as a doper, or having known dopers. Yet you have no such experience. None of your claims about the effects of EPO are based on personal knowledge or, alternatively, on data derived from comprehensive analysis of athletes who dope, since none subject themselves to scientific studies. So your claims about "optimization" and "maximization" are mere speculation on your part. You can be no more definitive in your views than anyone else here.

One could say child-like amusement from someone who thinks you need to experience anemia or polycythemia to speak about well documented detrimental effects.

I do have extensive experience with the necessity of controlled measurements to support claims such as 9 second improvements are entirely due to EPO.

One of my claims is that such controlled measurements simply do not exist.

This can easily be disproved by producing examples of such controlled measurements to demonstrate their existence.