How come "epo time" marathon times were weak?

casual obsever wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

However athletes get around the ABP, it is hard to argue (without posing straw) that getting away with EPO use is as easy now as before the ABP. Are you saying it is?

No, I am not saying it is as easy as before - why don't you read what I wrote?

I was arguing against the use of the belittling expression "microdosing", when one only has to restrict oneself to maybe 1/3 of the previously used doses.

I am also arguing against the latter part of your statement "all those road records from the unrestricted era are gone, in a very active progression likely to continue", since neither the 10k nor the half marathon record has progressed since 2010.

That 10k road record of 26:44 is in the realms of FloJo, Koch and some of the Shot Put records. That is 5sec quicker than Mo's 10,000m win a few weeks ago. No way that is credible unless it was a mickey-mouse course.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

That 157.8 is a staggering number, breathtaking. His reticulocyte levels must have been so low to produce an off-score like that. Seriously, that is a down-stream from aclear plant level off-score. 👽

That's got to be a WR! Jonathan Tiernan-Locke of cycling had, I believe, a 153 & Shobukhova was in the low 150s (?). So Ramzi probably has the record. Too bad rekrunner continues to ignore this Off-score and has resigned himself to believing that Ramzi's accomplishments were soley due to increasing his training from 5 times a week to 13. 😅👏

You've stated that for you to accept the results of a study it would have to involve the runners being in a 600 week pre-experiment controlled training phase.This is clearly ridiculous and puts the lie to any idea that you are actually willing to look dispassionately at any evidence at all. No, real world examples do not give as clear and unambiguous of evidence as clinical trials do. However the clinical trials and real world evidence all line up to show that EPO is effective.You have yet to produce any evidence at all to contradict that.

rekrunner wrote:

You seem to be honest in other contexts, looking for evidence and raw data much the same way as I do.

I don't deny doping positives, although Ramzi's 2005 "stratospheric off scores" was not a doping positive.

My discussions always surround the alleged performance benefits "at the top" attributed to EPO and blood transfusions, in distance running, and the lack of ability to create an accurate model, or show a strong blood doping to performance benefit correlation, from the real world observations.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Rekrunner has never seen a doping positive he cannot explain away...

Post-confession Lance doesn't go around trying to "impress college kids" but tries to be penitent or give the impression that he was forced to dope due to circumstances.

The whole context that part of his presentation was whether it was possible to compete against alleged "10 %" high-octane dopers and Armstrong has always maintained that rEPO was practically a non-issue in 1993 thus it was, whereas it became a problem in 1994 (to be honest, I can't recall seeing him going so far as to claim that nobody used it in 1993 though). Even in that discussion he mentions just shortly later that rEPO problem started "fully" in 1994 when he thought he could triumph with the rainbow jersey and was stunned finding how difficult it was. He emphasized this a few years in a Cyclingnews interview:

The traces of rEPO use in cycling go back to 1990 and we can easily find a huge amount of known rEPO users from 1993 and the amount of unknown users must also be enormous, so the reason for the "tectonic shift" remains at least not all that evident, an issue you didn't address at all in the link I provided.

To be honest, even when I do have serious issues about the efficacy of the blood hormone, I am impressed that a 21 year old "low octane" rookie was capable to beat a group of rEPO-dopers and cycling veterans. On Dr. Ferrari, I'll give my opinion about how hilarious his remarks were once you have established how it is connected to the weak marathon times of the pre-ABP era.

On your other similarly relevant links: Just seeing Marion Jones claiming in a 2004 press conference that her success was because of "talent & hard work" convinced me finally on how stupid I had been all along for not seeing clearly how rEPO benefits marathon runners. Sensational stuff, High-Octane Dopers! Thanks!

I didn't say "solely". I said it's a mistake to look at only EPO, ignoring other factors.

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

That 157.8 is a staggering number, breathtaking. His reticulocyte levels must have been so low to produce an off-score like that. Seriously, that is a down-stream from aclear plant level off-score. 👽

That's got to be a WR! Jonathan Tiernan-Locke of cycling had, I believe, a 153 & Shobukhova was in the low 150s (?). So Ramzi probably has the record. Too bad rekrunner continues to ignore this Off-score and has resigned himself to believing that Ramzi's accomplishments were soley due to increasing his training from 5 times a week to 13. 😅👏

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

That 157.8 is a staggering number, breathtaking. His reticulocyte levels must have been so low to produce an off-score like that. Seriously, that is a down-stream from aclear plant level off-score. 👽

That's got to be a WR! Jonathan Tiernan-Locke of cycling had, I believe, a 153 & Shobukhova was in the low 150s (?). So Ramzi probably has the record. Too bad rekrunner continues to ignore this Off-score and has resigned himself to believing that Ramzi's accomplishments were soley due to increasing his training from 5 times a week to 13. 😅👏

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

That's got to be a WR! Jonathan Tiernan-Locke of cycling had, I believe, a 153 & Shobukhova was in the low 150s (?). So Ramzi probably has the record. Too bad rekrunner continues to ignore this Off-score and has resigned himself to believing that Ramzi's accomplishments were soley due to increasing his training from 5 times a week to 13. 😅👏

http://gallery.myff.org/gallery/566989/f_jhk9f7gip8gm_347f294.jpg

Lance Armstrong's off-score.

OK, let's be more pragmatic, and forget the unrealistic 600 week preparation phase study. Let's remove all the barriers -- I've grown since then, and I think I'm ready and willing to look at any and all objective evidence dispassionately. I'm open to any realistic alternative(s) which addresses the doubts I've expressed. Let's summarise one here, by taking a closer look at this term "effective".If you want to make a claim about the magnitude of effectiveness EPO can bring in a competitive racing setting, such as a "doped Ramzi" versus a hypothetical "clean Ramzi", or "Sumgong gained 9 minutes with EPO" or "3-6% performance improvement for "well-trained" subjects means 3-6% for elites", you basically need a reliable way to accurately determine two values: a best "clean" value, and a best "doped" value. Contrary to your suggestion that "clinical trials and real world evidence all line up to show that EPO is effective", neither "clinical trials", nor real world examples give us these two values we need to conclude EPO's effectiveness at bringing athletes to a higher performance level than could be achieved "clean".Studies typically show that EPO is effective at developing a higher performance level in a short-term fixed-length timeframe. These typically don't attempt to bring the control subjects to their "clean" potential, and therefore don't allow you to conclude that EPO is effective at changing your potential to an unnaturally higher level. We would need a study designed to answer: does EPO just bring you to your clean potential faster? or does it change your potential? That is, if a group of 9 minute runners can run 8 minutes in six weeks with EPO, or 8 minutes in six months "clean", is EPO "effective"? Now you might say it's not fair to train the control group longer, but in a real race setting, like the Olympics or World Championships, the training timeframe is not static for all competitors. And it's just for illustration to help us understand what we mean by "effective" in studies, and in the real world.In an attempt to be pragmatic, and maintain within existing ethics boundaries, simply performing follow-up experiments with the same subjects would bring new information, whether the initial observed trend continues, diminishes, or eventually converges.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

You've stated that for you to accept the results of a study it would have to involve the runners being in a 600 week pre-experiment controlled training phase.

This is clearly ridiculous and puts the lie to any idea that you are actually willing to look dispassionately at any evidence at all.

No, real world examples do not give as clear and unambiguous of evidence as clinical trials do. However the clinical trials and real world evidence all line up to show that EPO is effective.

You have yet to produce any evidence at all to contradict that.

It's ridiculous to believe EPO "doesn't" help marathon runners.

There's been dozen of marathoners busted for EPO.

The smoking gun: Sumgong's EPO positive. The Rio gold medalist; it doesn't get any better than winning gold at the Olympics. She won the event, she's a doper, what's so hard figure out about that?

Another smoking gun: Jeptoo's positive in 2014. A 2:19 marathoner; good for 30th on the all-time list. Who says you can't run a fast time using EPO?

Marathoners from many countries have used EPO. Just look at the positives over the past decades.

In Ethiopia, there's even a pharmacy located down the road from their national stadium that conveniently sells EPO to athletes. A high-profile female was recorded saying she buys EPO from the pharmacy. She also admits to using HGH with EPO as part of a "45 day" program. And she been professionally instructed when to stop the program to avoid detection at competition time...just imagine that. Lol.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/04/doping-hotspot-ethiopia-drug-testing-epo

EPO is used and is effective for marathoners. They would probably laugh at a thread like this questioning the use & effectiveness of EPO.

Aragon wrote:

Post-confession Lance doesn't go around trying to "impress college kids" but tries to be penitent or give the impression that he was forced to dope due to circumstances.

Yes, and he tries to give the impression that he started using EPO later than his competition. There might actually be some fanbois falling for that. Hilarious.

Aragon wrote:

On your other similarly relevant links: Just seeing Marion Jones claiming in a 2004 press conference that her success was because of "talent & hard work" convinced me finally on how stupid I had been all along for not seeing clearly how rEPO benefits marathon runners. Sensational stuff, High-Octane Dopers! Thanks!

Often shorter distances drop first, then longer distances come into proportion/equivalence. When Bob Hayes ran 10.06 in 1964, the 200m WR was like 20.3/4 (the 200m WR should actually be a faster per 100m ratio than the actual 100m WR because of the running start to the 2nd 100m) and the 400m WR was even slower again (barely sub-45s). But as quicker guys ran longer events those times came down in 1967/68.

But looking at the debate around off-scores, elite marathoners actually have ample room to dope on epo without setting off any redflags. So we are gravely mistaken if we assume the marathon event is clean.

The other issue is that elite marathoners may race twice per year over the marathon distance and perhaps either a 10km or half in between. That is three in competition tests max per year and the window of detection is really only hours, perhaps a couple of days. And we know Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Djibouti, Uganda and for parts of Kenya, out of competition testing is non-existent. So when are these guys actually being tested? When the IAAF comes to visit and as soon as they are gone, what?

casual obsever wrote:

Yes, and he tries to give the impression that he started using EPO later than his competition. There might actually be some fanbois falling for that. Hilarious.

You are absolutely right that there are some people who seriously believe that Lance started to use rEPO only after 1993. I am aware of the following fanboys and fangirls who honestly believe this:

- cyclist Frankie Andreu (testified against Armstrong at the SCA hearings, his wife tracked down several sources for journalist David Walsh for his book LA Confidentiel)

- journalist David Walsh (his newspaper Sunday Times was sued by Armstrong because they published some portions of his book LA Confidentiel and they settled the case for £300,000)

- journalist Juliet Macur (in 2006 wrote the first article about former US Postal riders Jonathan Vaughters and Frankie Andreu confessing their rEPO use, had some legal issues with Armstrong)

What a pathetic idiots and Lance bootlickers.

Aragon wrote:

What a pathetic idiots and Lance bootlickers.

Your words, not mine. I just laugh when anyone believes something because that pathological liar said it.

rekrunner wrote:

OK, let's be more pragmatic, and forget the unrealistic 600 week preparation phase study. Let's remove all the barriers -- I've grown since then, and I think I'm ready and willing to look at any and all objective evidence dispassionately.

Nope. You've shown repeatedly and consistently that your only interest is to maintain that epo does not work and you will not allow even a possibility that it does. You have no interest in looking at evidence.

Fooled me several times. No more.

All the evidence indicates that EPO works. If you want to maintain that it doesn't, you should provide some actual evidence. You are completely unable or unwilling to do that.

There are better sources giving the same impressions.In USADA's Reasoned Decision, the public learned that "There is no dispute that Armstrong began seeing Dr. Michele Ferrari, a forceful promoter of EPO use, in 1995" and according to "numerous athletes" that "Dr. Ferrari generally has meant involvement with EPO". We learned from multiple teammates, an important trigger was the "sound beating" in the 1995 Milan - San Remo, in March, where the 1993 World Champion placed 73rd out of 162 finishers, nearly 6 minutes behind the leaders. "Coming home from the race Lance Armstrong was very upset", saying "this is (BS), people are using stuff" and "we are getting killed" and "he did not want to get crushed anymore" and "something needed to be done".This multiple corroboration sounds a lot like Lance, and Team Motorola, weren't yet using the drugs and methods Lance considered "high octane" as late as March 1995, and supports the impressions "that he started using EPO later than his competition" and "he was forced to dope due to circumstances".

casual obsever wrote:

Aragon wrote:

What a pathetic idiots and Lance bootlickers.

Your words, not mine. I just laugh when anyone believes something because that pathological liar said it.

So, I'm confused here...Aragon says LA high-octaned for the World's in 93. LA says he low-octaned for the Worlds (i.e., T & cortisone), and didn't consult with Dr. EPO until the spring of 95. Your info suggests it was well after 93? Hard to figure out. But one thing is certain; once LA got on his special cocktail of PEDs the rest was history and no one else had a chance for 7 straight years. And who says there's no such thing as the "high-responder" concept to PEDs.

But it wasn't cheap for Ferrari's services (i.e., "if you've got the dough, you're in the show." Lol):

In case that the sarcasm of my latest post went unnoticed, these people have zero interest in painting Lance in a positive light, it is said that Lance even caused Frankie Andreu to lose some of his future jobs in the cycling world after his wife began collaborating with Walsh against Lance and testified at the SCA hearings.

The consensus view is that he started to take rEPO in 1995 after mediocre year 1994 and a bleak spring of 1995 and this is the position of even people who have had no reason to whitewash him in any manner.

Part of the confusion might be, to my knowledge, Aragon did not say LA "LA high-octaned for the World's in 93", but that others in the peloton already started by 1993.USADA's report is consistent with a low-octane LA in 1993, and a post-spring 1995 for the start of EPO.

Lance & his cocktail of PEDs wrote:

So, I'm confused here...Aragon says LA high-octaned for the World's in 93. LA says he low-octaned for the Worlds (i.e., T & cortisone), and didn't consult with Dr. EPO until the spring of 95. Your info suggests it was well after 93? Hard to figure out. But one thing is certain; once LA got on his special cocktail of PEDs the rest was history and no one else had a chance for 7 straight years. And who says there's no such thing as the "high-responder" concept to PEDs.

rekrunner wrote:

There are better sources giving the same impressions.

...

This multiple corroboration sounds a lot like Lance, and Team Motorola, weren't yet using the drugs and methods Lance considered "high octane" as late as March 1995, and supports the impressions "that he started using EPO later than his competition" and "he was forced to dope due to circumstances".

"better sources"/"multiple corroboration"? Other than Ferrari coming on board in 95, you and Aragon have only cited Armstrong.

Looks rather like he professionalized the EPO program in 95, as that was Ferrari's specialty. Nobody needed Ferrari to use EPO in 1993/4. Can't see someone like Armstrong not going right away after the best drugs.

In any case, the - for me much more - interesting question is:

considering that Armstrong was evidently doping since several years before USADA's beginnings in the year 2000, how come USADA did nothing about his doping during any of his TdF wins?