Kelvin Kiptum - possible red flag?

Weldon interviewing Salazar in 2013 (link below): "I asked Alberto specifically about the change in his comments at the Duke Law School in 1999 to the London Olympics in 2012.

Alberto pointed out that the anti-doping world had changed a lot in the thirteen years since 1999, and the testing was much better so clean athletes could compete in 2012."

Salazar's fastest marathoners are Rupp (2:06:07) and Farah (2:05:11) (after leaving Salazar)

Mosop runs sub-2:02 where? In Boston, gaining 1+ minute?

Can you cite Schumacher's belief? I only found one statement for 10K, down to 1500m.

letsrun.com

The Alberto Salazar 1999 "Duke" Quote on It Being Difficult to Be Top Five in the World Without EPO and HGH

Weldon Johnson

LRC's Weldon Johnson corrects the record on Alberto Salazar's comments from 1999, "I believe that it is currently difficult to be among the top 5 in the world in any of the distance events without using EPO or Human Growth Ho...

Open link

Rekrunner, how many different ways can you write that doping doesn't make E African marathon runners faster?

Predictable reply. Narcissistic sociopaths like you live in denial of their condition.

"The narcissist's denial becomes a kind of self-deception in which accurate perception is ignored and replaced with preferred distortions."

I recommend you find a good therapist. You need one. 😊

Not just East Africans. I adopted and maintained a popular assumption that doping works for East Africans the same way as everyone else.

What you aren't smart enough to realise is that the above paragraph could just as easily apply to you. Oh, wait ...

Of course. It doesn't work for anyone. They only "believe" it does. Like you believe it doesn't.

I will wait. I don't check any of those boxes. You check them all. 😊

Oh, and I am much smarter than you. I am not wasting hours of my days, every day, arguing with strangers on the internet. 😂

So what are you doing now? What a spectacular 'own goal'.

And so the projection goes on. I will ask again for the umpteenth time, what have you posted on the thread subject?

I thought to the post you were answering to.

But you are not the letsrundumber no. 1 for no reason, so maybe you were referring to a
totally different post from a totally different message board in a totally different world. Seems not unlikely to me.

What a spectacular own goal for you. You are too dumb to see that I came to Letsrun once yesterday, I didn't come here the day before, while you are here every day, several times a day, sometimes for hours. Your reading comprehension is very poor. 🤭

Why should I answer your question? You always expect others to do things for you when you never do anything for anyone. Typical narcissist. Don't be lazy and find my posts yourself. Just a hint: I used a registered handle 😉

As we have seen, Salazar's "belief" evolved, once he gained a decade+ of experience coaching elite athletes.

About Canova's "belief", what was clipped from the quote was "I never denied this possibility", in a paragraph that explains that his doubts about EPO are not doubts about steroids.

I'm still waiting for Schumacher's statement about elite performance in the marathon.

I guess "I believe because others believe" is a good explanation why the beliefs are so widespread. But the question remains then - why would these "experts" believe, assuming that they do? Salazar was an inexperienced coach in 1999, and is also prone to religious beliefs. He also never put an athlete in the top-5, in the marathon. Canova looked more like he was denying blood doping performance benefits, and excluding steroids from that denial, rather than endorsing a belief in steroid performance benefits for the marathon. And whatever Schumacher believes, it is surely rooted on doping/performance science which cautions against using that science to believe anything about elite performance.

Salazar: huh? He did not change his mind regarding how much doping helps in the marathon; he changed his mind about how well testing works (as you cited verbatim!), because, well, at least formally testing improved from 1999 (no EPO test, no ABP) to 2012 (EPO test + ABP), and obviously, he can't admit that he doped Rupp and Farah. That's a different topic!

Canova: he did not specify where Mosop would run 2:01, and whether that would be with a huge tailwind. Ask him if you want to know. He is usually good in responding. Canova also has routinely stated that EPO helps most marathon runners, just not the select few with ideal talent and training, including long time development of the aerobic system while living and training at altitude. So any hypothetical 2:00 runner that for example did not live and train at altitude would benefit from EPO.

Schumacher: I guess we are talking about the same statement (IIRC 5% better O2 transport, 3-4% faster over 10K, without mentioning the marathon directly). I note you asked for why people "believed"; you didn't ask for proof beyond any doubt.

What I find more interesting than figuring out how much a 5% better O2 transport helps in a marathon (roughly 90% of the speed of the 10K, so maybe "only" 2-3%?), is what these experts are actually referring to.

Salazar talked about EPO and HGH, Canova about anabolic steroids, and Schumacher about blood doping only. How about the synergistic effects of using EPO and HGH and anabolic steroids and corticosteroids and speed peptides and prednisone and thyroid meds? 5 minutes?

And from a practical point of view, what's the difference between all-out doping, all-out doping except for close to competition, and doping under the eyes of a serious NADO (AIU)? 2 minutes?

@me: I don't visit LR on Sundays, sorry, and rarely on Saturdays.

So you use one handle for comments and the other for abuse. Nice. Your registered handle wouldn't wish to own what your unregistered one says, Dr Jekyll (or is it Mr Hyde?)

I suppose you already answered the question -- you believe because you believe that is what "experts" like Salazar, Canova, Schumacher believes.

I would agree that what is "more interesting ... is what these experts are actually referring to." In other words, "why do they believe?", and "what is the basis?".

I do have to correct the quotes about Salazar: the "2-minute" for marathon didn't come from the 1999 Duke Law comments about the difficulty of being in the top-5, but from an Oct. 1998 article in the New York Times. There he doesn't mention EPO or blood doping, but accused athletes from third world countries of being willing to taking steroids and human-growth hormones. Given the timing of the article, it's not clear to me that Salazar said that when the world record was Belayneh Dinsamo's 2:06:50 from 1988, for more than a decade, or Ronaldo da Costa's then recently set 2:06:05 from 1998. He also doesn't refer to the "top 5" or anything similar, but to "third world" athletes. I'm curious also who he meant by "third world" athletes. Would it be just the Africans, with athletes from Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Djibouti and South Africa, or would it also include Mexico and Brazil? In the '90s, Mexico had serious depth in the marathon, with no less than seven 2:10 or better athletes.

To address your other questions (IMO), the synergistic effect could also be 0%, when compared to legal altitude training, as well as the "difference between all-out doping, all-out doping except for close to competition, and doping under the eyes of a serious NADO (AIU)". It could even be negative, as the opportunity cost from a lack of focus on proper training and recovery may stunt the athlete's peak performance, as well as any counter-productive side-effects of overdosing.

Also an interesting question -- what is the value of extra O2 delivery for 2+ hours at sub-VO2max efforts, if your performance is limited by muscle fatique or H+ or heat dissipation, or glycogen supply?

No, dumb man 😂 I use one handle on my laptop and another handle on my phone.

Good question.