EPO Helps Mid D More than Long Distance?

And you shouldn't attempt to form an argument if you don't understand logic. You are using Vainio, comparing his performance in the pre-EPO era, to argue that EPO didn't make any difference. But Vainio was doped to the gills using a method (blood packing) with very similar effects to EPO, so that fact completely invalidates your argument.

Odds are the Portuguese were also blood packing.

I discussed about Lasse Viren with one of his biographers a few years ago and he also had no clue whether he had blood doped or not. All I know for sure is that Viren apparently seemed publicly to know less about the matter than he actually did. He didn't seem to know anything about blood doping when journalists asked about it in Montreal 76. Later he told he heard about it in 1973 or 1974. Finnish press had discussed about the matter constantly since 1971 and Viren was specifically asked about transfusions in Munich 72.

I am pretty convinced that there was some sort of quasi official blood doping program, but there are several unanswered questions. Autotransfusion technique had problems because unlike in Italy, Finns had no high glycerol freezing equipment and every known blood doper has used homologous blood doping. One Finnish autotransfusion study 1971 didn't find any value in the method.

There was also the question about the optimal hematocrit. Many top Finnish hematologist associated with the sports governing bodies had the opinion that excess red blood cells had only negative effect on performance. This opinion was expressed in inside discussions also and interestingly it seems that everyone in Finland who is known to have used transfusion has suffered of anemia.

As Finnish athletes had history of anemia, I wouldn't be too surprised if the main rationale of sensational blood doping had been to treat anemia. In correspondence with one journalist I managed to get two names of doctors who "developed" the Finnish blood doping technique in 1968-1969, hopefully following that lead is fruitful and revealing.

Renato, I'd be very interested if you had some more detailed recollections about what late Dr Bosco (brother of law of one of the best Finnish cross country skiers ever) knew about the Finnish program.

I could also mention that Finns began mountain training in 1960s and 1970s in places such as Thompson Falls and Fort Romeu, but it wasn't tha systematic yet.

Blood transfusions and EPO achieve the same thing.

“2. - The number of red cells in circulation can be increased beyond their genetically-determined limit via two mechanisms: transfusing cells directly into the circulation; or stimulating the bone marrow to exceed its natural rate of red cell production.”

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/blood-doping-in-athletics/written/21284.html

“Q2 - Chair: Can you very briefly tell us what blood doping is?

Dr Ashenden: Essentially, it is increasing the number of oxygen-carrying red cells in the circulation. You can do that either by transfusing them directly into the bloodstream or you can stimulate the bone marrow to produce more red blood cells than it normally would. By having more red blood cells it increases the amount of oxygen that can be transferred to exercising muscles and so it helps performance.”

“Q33 - Andrew Bingham: So that we can get some perspective on this, what advantage would blood doping give an athlete in, say, a 1,500-metre race in terms of time?

Dr Ashenden: Based on scientific studies where they have actually doped athletes and raced them those sorts of distances, a couple of seconds.

Andrew Bingham: So in the grand scheme of things that is quite significant and, as The Sunday Times reported, British athletes have been—I hesitate to say cheated out of medals, but have lost medals to people suspected of this. It is quite a significant advantage then.

Dr Ashenden: No question. The efficacy of blood doping, in terms of the performance advantage that it bestows is head and shoulders above the benefit that you can get from anything else, like taking steroids to improve your training and things like that. Two or three seconds might not sound like a lot

Andrew Bingham: It is.

Dr Ashenden: but I can guarantee you that if you changed someone’s time by two or three seconds it is going shift from a bronze medal to a gold medal, for example.”

“Q34 - Ian C. Lucas: I remember reading many years ago talk of blood doping, so this isn’t anything new, is it? I remember athletes in the late 1970s and early 1980s being accused of this.

Dr Ashenden: Yes, the first time that we had any insight that it was being used in an organised fashion was the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. Back then blood transfusions were not banned and so the team doctors were organising for friends and relatives to come in and transfuse blood into the cyclists before they raced. There was a huge outcry when this became public and it was banned soon afterwards, but even today as we sit here there is still no test for blood transfusion. As long as your blood values do not deviate too much there is no way that you can be caught.”

“Q36 - Jason McCartney: Any analysis at all of the power disciplines, short distances? Any evidence about that in terms of strength rather endurance?

Dr Ashenden: No, the conventional view of blood doping is that it is most beneficial in middle distance endurance events, so if you are talking of a benefit of, say, three seconds in a 1,500 metre race, in an 800 metre race that would be one or one and a half seconds. For anything less than that, the benefit that you are getting really is starting to become something that you could accommodate simply by genetic ability or training. So the benefit of blood doping is focused on those middle events.”

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/blood-doping-in-athletics/oral/21309.html

Interestingly, Victor Conte gave Dwain Chambers EPO.

“EPO was used three days per week during the "corrective phase", which is the first two weeks of a cycle. Typically, it was on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. It was only used once per week during the "maintenance phase" thereafter, typically this was every Wednesday. The dosage was 4,000 IU per injection. The purpose was to increase the red blood cell count and enhance oxygen uptake and utilization. This substance provides a big advantage to sprinters because it enables them to do more track repetitions and obtain a much deeper training load during the off season. EPO becomes undetectable about 72 hours after subcutaneous injection (stomach) and only 24 hours after intravenous injection.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/athletics/7403158.stm

“EPO’s effect on distance runners has shown that four weeks of every-other-day injections improves 3000-meter running time by an average of 6%. A month after the end of the EPO injections, the runners were still 3% faster than they had been before receiving any EPO. The raw data (averages of 10 runner-subjects’ 3000-meter times): 10:12 before EPO; 9:40 after four weeks of EPO; 9:53 four weeks later with no additional EPO injections.”

http://www.runnersworld.com/newswire/study-epo-effective-long-lasting

This is what many scientists say, but it's not really connected with the reality of training.

For example, the last paragraph is a total bullshit, since is referred to the most stupid experiment coming from WADA, the one regarding 19 scottish boys with average in 3000m of 11' and 15 kentan boys with average of 9'20". Following some idiot who, starting from the acclarated advantages EPO gave to people needing dialysis, supposed the same advantages could follow the same trend also for athletes well trained and for top runners (like the body of people in dialysis and of top runners worked in the same way, with the same percentages and with the same level of effort and demand), also some scientist not knowing athletics and training continues speaking about 8"-10" of advantage in a competition of 3000m, 25"-30" for 5000m and 1' for 10000m, till 4' in Marathon.

I had, among my athletes, the WR holder of steeple Stephen Cherono, who could run under 7'50" in 2006 with a perfect pacing and perfect conditions, since he was very much better than in 2004, when he ran the WR. Since Shaheen was not only clean, but refused to use any supplement and medicine in all his life, can somebody think he could run steeple under 7'45" taking EPO ? And what about athletes such as Nicholas Kemboi, moving in less than two months from 28'19" to 26'30" in 10000m in 2003 (and don't tell me I can't be sure about any athlete : Nicholas was in the same room with me for all that period, and his doping was milk and ugali) ? Could he be able to run 25'30" ?

Who had the opportunity to work, not only with programs, but "physically" together with some of the best athletes in the world, well know that the "magic EPO" doesn't have any influence with a lot of top runners, and very little influence with athletes of international level, but not elite.

This discussion can continue for ever, without any final certainty.

I don't have any proof that EPO doesn't give advantages in middle and long distances, and I can't have any proof, since nobody had the opportunity, till today, to do deep researches with this class of top athletes (I repeat, born, living and training in altitude). But I have prooves that some athletes can be on the top of the World using training only, and without any supplement, also legal. For this reason I Always, in the past, now and in the future, will continue to fight against the wrong, sad and stupid idea that EVERY ATHLETE RUNNING REALLY FAST MUST BE DOPED, AND IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO WIN WITHOUT DOPING.

There has never been an experiment involving the top 100 athletes in the world because such an experiment would be impossible to do.

Any currently competing world-class athlete would been banned for several years if he took part in such an experiment!

Although, recently retired world class athletes could take part in such an experiment. I would be interested in seeing the results of such an experiment.

Renato Canova wrote:

... since is referred to the most stupid experiment coming from WADA,

In fact, this experiment is part of the most important experiment in the history of anti-doping. Yannis Pitsiladis could potentially produce the first truly unbeatable doping test.

If the new ‘omics’ test works for EPO, then in theory, it could work for any blood boosting drug. It may even work for blood transfusions.

It would be amazing if this approach could be applied to drugs like testosterone and growth hormone.

Sorry, but about the experiment with 19 scottish boys and 15 kenyan boys there is nothing scientific.

1) There is no a second Group using double blind

2) They speak "generally" of "well trained athletes", without specifying which type of training : continuity, volume, intensity, in other words, methodoly they used, BEFORE starting the experiment (the first test)

3) They didn't explain the above parameters, DURING the period of EPO administration (the 2nd test)

4) They didn't explain the above parameters, AFTER the period of EPO administration, during the weeks without doping but before the 3rd test

5) If they were already athletes, looking at their PB they were or totally without any talent, or not trained

6) Because there isn't any information about training, we must argue they are not interested in TRAINING : what is, how can be developed, and the effects can have on physiological parameters.

7) Again : if training DOESN'T HAVE any physiological effect, there is no reason because athletes, after training, can improve. This means that training has effects on the individual physiology, of different level, depending on the following factors : individual talent, continuity, duration, motivation, volume, intensity, correct methodology.

8) This means TRAINING doesn't mean anything, without exact specification of all the parameters I explained in the 7th point

9) Because Training at different level of volume, intensity, continuity, duration produces different adaptations ; because training is influenced by individual talent ; because training can be SMART or not, being in any case HARD (and if Smart is Always Hard, many times Hard is not Smart), for all these facts, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO CARRY OUT ANY RESEARCH ABOUT BLOOD DOPING IF WE DON'T ASSOCIATE THIS WITH THE INDIVIDUAL TRAINING.

For all these reasons, the research had a validity for the "class of subjects" represented : Young boys, not trained, and weak.

To transfer their trend to top runners, doing everything in altitude at max level, is one of the biggest stupidity and doesn't have anything of scientific.

Since WADA supported this fake research, we have two options only :

1) They well knew this was a bullshit, but used the final data for creating smoke in the eyes of people not expert of training (so were opportunist and not honest)

2) They really believe in the final results, and in this case need to change profession, because they want to speak about sport without considering the effects of the most important factor : TRAINING

You consider a 9:20 average two mile time weak for teenage boys?

If you are a Kenyan, very weak. There are more than 500 boys able running under 9'20" in Kenya when juniores, and you can find athletes running that time without any specific preparation.

About the Scottish, I hope that also for some Letsrun poster 11' in 3000m must be considered a very weak performance....

The most important factor is GENETICS.

Bump

You've mentioned a few times the promise of "omics", without really explaining what the promise is. From the video presentation, it looks like a promising way to improve detecting the effects of doping, similar to and building on the ABP, by looking at various genetic-related changes.Where the Scottish/Kenyan fails, is the main conclusion everyone seems to walk away with, regarding the performance changes of 9:00 and 10:00 3K runners, and how this might project on sub-8:00 or faster, elite runners. You cannot expect a 6-9% change for these "well trained" runners to apply to a 7:40 "clean" elite athlete (which would be a 25 second improvement), without controlling for other factors that separate "elite" athletes from these test subjects. At the very least, the experiment could have proposed a trend line, or curve, to model how the performance increase decreases as the times get faster. Then you can start a discussion about which curve is the best, and if any asymptotes exist, etc.So while the Scottish/Kenyan study might play a role in improving indirect detection of doping, you can hardly use the performance changes of these subjects to draw conclusions about elite runners.

1000 wrote:

Renato Canova wrote:

... since is referred to the most stupid experiment coming from WADA,

In fact, this experiment is part of the most important experiment in the history of anti-doping. Yannis Pitsiladis could potentially produce the first truly unbeatable doping test.

https://youtu.be/m38WqCxEaLk?t=42m5s

If the new ‘omics’ test works for EPO, then in theory, it could work for any blood boosting drug. It may even work for blood transfusions.

It would be amazing if this approach could be applied to drugs like testosterone and growth hormone.

Renato Canova wrote:

This is what many scientists say, but it's not really connected with the reality of training.

.

I have zero respect for you or any of the trolls following you who eat this garbage up you are spewing. The effects from EPO injections or Blood transfusions are well known.

1. The reality is all Performance Enhancers increase the ability to train harder and/or recover faster. That's why athletes are willing to cheat and use them.

2. EPO injections increase performance without having any training stimulus needed, because the subsequent increase in red blood cell count reduces the cardiac output required to produce the same power output (oxygen consumption) and the increased hemoglobin also buffers lactate and increases CO2 removal. The increase in blood viscosity is a trade-off to decrease blood pressure and heart rate to attain a sub-maximal workload.

3. To put #2 into perspective, with a trained athlete, one can now train @ 4:45 mile pace for a 5K Tempo or put in a 20 miler @ 5:30 pace when that might have been 5:00 mile pace for the Tempo or 6:00 pace for the 20 miler. This is the hook that sinks into them when they start taking PEDs specifically EPO or blood transfusions.

4. To put #3 into perspective, after time the body starts making adaptations and starts working that down to 4:40 mile pace and about 5:20ish mile pace for those workouts. The is where the hook firmly lodges itself and the athlete can never free themselves from that hook. Those physiological adaptations are real and if done long enough they will take longer than the rest of the athletes career to disappear.

Best Regards,

D3_Nuts

The effects on red blood cell count is well known, but the subsequent impact on performance improvement in a real world class race context is not.

Can you explain how increased haemoglobin buffers lactate and increases CO2 removal?

And what is this hook (the real physiological adaptations) that sinks into the athlete, firmly lodges itself, such that the athlete can never free themselves, and takes longer than their career to disappear.

You are putting it in perspective for the wrong class of athlete. Your 5:00 5K tempo and 6:00 20 miler example is more like a 30:00 10K runner. Can you put it in perspective for the elite athlete who is already running 5K tempos at 4:30 pace, and his 20 milers at 5:25 pace? These are approximate paces for the 27:00 10K runner.

rekrunner wrote:

The effects on red blood cell count is well known, but the subsequent impact on performance improvement in a real world class race context is not.

Can you explain how increased haemoglobin buffers lactate and increases CO2 removal?

And what is this hook (the real physiological adaptations) that sinks into the athlete, firmly lodges itself, such that the athlete can never free themselves, and takes longer than their career to disappear.

You are putting it in perspective for the wrong class of athlete. Your 5:00 5K tempo and 6:00 20 miler example is more like a 30:00 10K runner. Can you put it in perspective for the elite athlete who is already running 5K tempos at 4:30 pace, and his 20 milers at 5:25 pace? These are approximate paces for the 27:00 10K runner.

Same process but faster paces. Not rocket scientry.

Rocket science is easy. This stuff is much harder.

The resulting faster paces and performance from EPO is still speculative for the already elite runner.

Distance running performances exploded in the 90s, the same time synthetic EPO came into widespread use. And there was no way to detect it. Seems pretty obvious that it was and is beneficial to distance runners.

People that disagree with this will say one of 2 things:

1) The best runners weren't using drugs.

The best cyclists and swimmers were. No reason to believe the best runners were an exception to this.

2) Even if they were using it, it doesn't help their performance.

It is quite a coincidence then that distance running records were decimated at this time.

I had taken a step back from this thread due to the holidays, and there have been many good points raised.

(I think it was Canova who raised) A good point about analyzing results: there are far more variables that can be controlled and understood in statistical analysis (and our statistical analysis is far from scientific or academic). Sport performance is very complex, and no one can really try to narrow down one factor over another. (which is why I think that the noticeable change post-1990/EPO era, even if insignificant according to percentages and numbers, is actually significant because it is something that stands out at all, against all of the noise of these other factors, but I'll concede that it isn't conclusive in the scientific sense.)

So after my break from the forum, I wanted to just rehash where the debate stands, very generally (these have been thoroughly explained, so go back and read before relying on this summary):

- Canova claims that there is no scientific validity to the claim that EPO works on highly trained runners. I claim that there is no reason to assume that highly trained runners wouldn't follow patterns observed in other levels of fitness; there is no evidence behind the claim that highly trained individuals are excepted from the trends observed in lower level athletes. .

I want to back off from the statistical analysis. We can pea-hack statistics our way into saying that EPO leads to Islamic terrorism, and that that the IOC's ban on blood transfusions led to the fall of the Soviet Union. But there has been nothing definitive emerging, and while I believe that what is apparent in the trends of race results indicates widespread EPO use (use that boosts the performance of already well-trained athletes) I am failing to convince you (Aragon and others). I won't be able to change your mind, I can only present my interpretation of the facts. So lets move on, I guess.

I had a few thoughts during my lay off.

Canova, I will take it on faith that you trust the athletes you are vouching for, Shaheen, Cherono, Mosop, etc.

How much do you trust the athletes of other programs and nations? You say many of those caught doping were B-Level athletes who doped to the elite level, or even that elite level athletes doped when they didn't need to. How much do you trust other programs and nations, given what we see about the frequency of drug use across the sport? I'm not asking for your opinion on the effectiveness of PEDs on different athletes, I'm asking how much you trust the integrity of your competitors and their coaches/agents/support staff/family./friends?

I ask this to lead to a secondary question: the world and national record holders whom you did not coach, how much do you trust that they were as fully developed as they could have been? We have seen the training logs of runners like Sammy Wanjiru, and Bob Kennedy. You say that runners with a fully developed aerobic house can't benefit from EPO. Do you really think that the training of these athletes fully developed that aerobic house? Do you think that their training really developed them to a point where EPO couldn't benefit? And more importantly Do you think they had such a resilient training and support staff, that none of them thought a PED would improve their performance?.

Because as important as the actual benefit of PEDs on athletes, which I am apparently failing to show several people, is the perceived benefit. Does Rita Jeptoo deserve as much of a ban in your mind Renato, given that you think she could have reached that level regardless of EPO? Is it as likely that Rita Jeptoo was convinced of the effectiveness of EPO, that other top athletes are convinced about the effectiveness of EPO enough to take it?

bernie madoff wrote:

Distance running performances exploded in the 90s, the same time synthetic EPO came into widespread use. And there was no way to detect it. Seems pretty obvious that it was and is beneficial to distance runners.

People that disagree with this will say one of 2 things:

1) The best runners weren't using drugs.

The best cyclists and swimmers were. No reason to believe the best runners were an exception to this.

2) Even if they were using it, it doesn't help their performance.

It is quite a coincidence then that distance running records were decimated at this time.

I love this. The assertion of doping not helping elite athletes because they are somehow different is so absurd it is nonsensical. The only truth in some of the arguments presented is that elite athletes who didn't dope can achieve great marks. The problem has always been the shift in the whole performance curve of all athletes to the right side of the curve giving it a heavy tailed distribution and its concerning.

Right now, after Radcliffe's Off-Score release, I am certain she doped and the complete failure of the IAAF Biological Passport Program and IAAF Drug Testing Program has been bared before us yet we still have a near majority who think most of the athletes are clean.