RENATO CANOVA INTERVIEW- ". I can put my hands on fire" to prove these althletes are clean

I don't think Mr. Occam agrees with your interpretation. I will follow Occam.

J.R. - I agree with you on a lot of things, but it's very difficult to agree with you on the lack of benefits of PEDs, especially EPO. Studies like Birkeland et al (2000 - Effect of rhEPO administration on serum levels of sTfR and cycling performance) listed in http://extremehumanperformance.com/blog/does-epo-enhance-performance/ are fairly compelling.However, I've been trying to get my head around this study on Tadese. It was done a week (before or after?) he beat Bekele (who had just set the indoor 2000m world record - 4:49.99 - a month before). Here's a guy whose hematocrit was tested at 43.7 within a week of a race where beat the best distance runner ever (not in a Cragg/miscounted laps kind of way - although obviously the heat was a factor). Now let's think about this. If he were on EPO/CERA (I mean he was a hardcore cyclist before he was a hardcore runner...), then that would mean his real HCT would be, what, mid to high 30's for an elite athlete? That's tough for me, personally, to believe considering mine was tested at 48.2 last year when I was way out of shape. Let's think about what would happen if he raised his HCT artificially to 50. How much faster would or could he have run in that XC race? Imagine if the 10% time to exhaustion increase found in the Birkeland study applied to running his XC race. That means his ~11km race pace could be extended to the full 12km race - how much faster would that really be? Considering his 5k/10k pr is 2:36/2:40 per km, let's not be conservative and say an improvement of 2s/km (which would mean we'd be assuming his 12:59 was done while clean). That's 24 seconds and he'd finish a second behind Mosop. Whoopdeefrickin' doo. Yes, it could mean the difference between 1st and 3rd in this race(assuming Bekele stayed in) and that would truly truly suck to Bekele and Mosop if they're clean. Now let's think about if he actually isn't on EPO/CERA as speculated by the authors of the study - does your HCT really matter right now in long distance running? We have Russian racewalkers getting caught with EPO but their national marathon record is still over 2:09.------------From Lucia et al's (2007) "The key to top-level endurance running performance: A unique example" on Zersenay Tadese:At the time of the race (+ 1 week), the subject’s haemoglobin (14.6 g/dL) and haematocrit levels (43.7%) measured in our laboratory (Sysmex XE-2100 haematology analyzer, Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) were within physiological limits, suggesting no manipulations to artificially increase blood oxygen transport capacity, e.g., no use of recombinant human erythropoietin (r-HuEPO). Other blood data (percentage of reticulocytes over total red cell count of 0.063% and percentage of low-, medium- and high-flourescence reticulocytes over total reticulocyte count of 94.5, 5.2 and 0.3%, respectively) also suggest no artificial stimulation of erythropoiesis. Previous blood analyses performed regularly since 2004 showed similar results. Finally, the athlete has passed an average of 15-20 ‘anti-doping’ controls per year during the last three years [including both competition and ‘out-of-competition’ drug tests from the International Association of Athletics Federations, (IAAF)] without adverse findings...Although the greatest VO2max value of our runner obtained in our laboratory (three incremental treadmill tests until exhaustion at ~600 m altitude since 2004 using an automated system for gas-exchange analysis (Vmax 29C; Sensormedics; California, USA)) was very high (83 mLO2/kg/min), it was not exceptional amongst elite runners. Similar values have been described in both elite African runners and non-African runners who were less accomplished competitively.

J.R. wrote:

So instead of that they promote their drug accusations schemes, trying to say that some athletes are using drugs to help performances - which is not true because it is IMPOSSIBLE - along with their bogus tests that don't have any scientific basics. Even the protocols for the tests are not seeing the light of day, because they are so obscure and ridiculous.

kanny wrote:

J.R. - I agree with you on a lot of things, but it's very difficult to agree with you on the lack of benefits of PEDs, especially EPO. Studies like

Surely you realize that ALL peer review studies are promoted by and MUST have the backing of the chemical corporations.

Surely you're not lending any credence to their veracity.

As pointed out by Renato, they often come to conclusive conclusions in opposition to reality, because that is their purpose, to mislead the public into thinking that toxic chemicals are somehow miraculous wonder drugs.

If all the manipulations, lies, ads and bogus studies disappeared immediately, soon no one would be taking any drugs anymore, and the general population would be much healthier than today.

J.R. wrote:

As pointed out by Renato, they often come to conclusive conclusions in opposition to reality

What other kind of conclusions are there besides "conclusive" ones? I might add that you're the one who appears to be "in opposition to reality."

I'm with you on your view of drugs (heck - I haven't taken an nsaid in 15 years - not even with all the injuries I had experienced - although I differ in that even I understand the extreme importance of something like antibiotics) but man, don't diss on ALL peer reviewed studies. As someone who's read tens of thousands of abstracts and thousands of complete studies, it's pretty insulting to the authors (from all over the world) of the millions of studies out there to question their veracity. There are an incredible number of peer reviewed studies (some from the same journal that the Birkeland study was from) touting benefits for plenty of non patentable substances (including food). Do I read studies with their results and conclusions with a grain of salt? Absolutely - I focus on the raw data as much as possible and make my own conclusions.By condemning all peer reviewed studies, you're starting to sound just as bad as the conspiracy-theorist-ish people on this board who think everyone's on drugs.

J.R. wrote:

Surely you realize that ALL peer review studies are promoted by and MUST have the backing of the chemical corporations.

Surely you're not lending any credence to their veracity.

As pointed out by Renato, they often come to conclusive conclusions in opposition to reality, because that is their purpose, to mislead the public into thinking that toxic chemicals are somehow miraculous wonder drugs.

If all the manipulations, lies, ads and bogus studies disappeared immediately, soon no one would be taking any drugs anymore, and the general population would be much healthier than today.

Kanny, thank you for the compliments.

Indeed we differ on antibiotics, as I consider them to be extremely dangerous and harmful. The more than are taken, the more the immune system is run down, leading to conditions such as AIDS, the acquired immune deficiency syndrome - not a disease, but a condition, the condition of the immune system no longer functioning - a condition that did not exist prior to the onslaught of modern antibiotics and their destructiveness.

Check out the first link I found in the search engine IX.quick.com in the search for "Pasteur, fraud."

The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur.

http://www.whale.to/a/b/pearson.html

If Renato has ever facilitated the use of illegal PEDs to any of his athletes, he would be in violation of many international laws and would be risking very stiff jail sentences.

Surely he hasn't crossed that line.

Thanks for the link - sounds interesting, especially the account of Dr. Lister (hey - where Listerine got its name!) trying to find the right amount of carbolic acid as an antiseptic to use for surgery. I've read stuff about the supposed dark side of Pasteur a long time ago (back when I was way more anti medical establishment - I'm closer to the middle now) and this is a good refresher.

Anyway, to bring it back to the OP, this reminds me of my favorite quote of Coach Canova's: "Training is an enemy, that the body must learn to recognize. Training is like a vaccine: you inject in the body a small quantity of the virus, so the body can recognize the enemy, for fighting and destroying it when tries to win with your body." It's pretty much why I've been intensely researching the concept of immunity for years.

Just curious - what would you contribute the dramatic rise in life expectancy over the last 100 years to (if you believe the data and also account for the major wars) if not to medical progress facilitated by "chemical corporations"?

I cant give any response about something I dont know. I never used anything like this, and I'm not interested in researching something personal I think out of the training effects. Different if you speak about some recovery system (like cryotherapy) that can be used, if you have the facility (in Kenya, sometimes we use ice after tough training).

What I know is that the level of hematocrit doesn't have any influence in the performance, because is strictly personal, and everybody has his personal best level.

I don't accept your idea that the hematrpocrit is THE CAUSE of a performance. Instead, the cause of a performance is training, and the level of hematocrit is THE EFFECT OF TRAINING. Already I explained that, increasing the shape with proper training, in ALL the athletes of EVERY COUNTRY the level of hematocrit goes down. Gelindo Bordin won Olympic in Marathon (1988) with 41.2 of hematocryt and 12.8 of haemoglobin, and the responsible of haematology in the Hospital of Pisa wanted to admit him in the hospital because his values were the values of somebody in full anaemia.... and he won Olympics!

All the best athletes I coached NEVER had their haematocrit higher than 45. However, there are personal differences : for example, the Italian Record Holder of 1500m, Genny Di Napoli (3'32"78), absolutely natural athlete similar Kenyans, had normally 18.5 of Hemoglobin with hematocrit higher than 50, and when had 17.2 he felt in anaemia.

This is what I know, and this is what ALL the coaches working with top athletes know. This is NOT what doctors working with cyclists know, because in their mind the values are the CAUSE, not the EFFECT. And that's the reason because there are NO cyclists racing without using supports, mostly legal (but the border line between what is legal and what is doping is very thin, and sometimes not possible to define).

Renato Canova wrote:

(but the border line between what is legal and what is doping is very thin, and sometimes not possible to define).

Yes, officer, she certainly looked to be 18 years old. I could have sworn she was...

I'm going to stop posting now.

Cliff E. Clavin wrote:

I'm going to stop posting now.

Why? You see what is really going on so why not share this with others?

J.R. - whilst you have a foot grounded in reality your other foot is leading you astray. Sure there is a conspiracy there but it isn't like anyone is controlling it all. It's just the system is out of everyones control, rewarding all of the wrong things in the world. The movie 'The Cube' explains this metaphorically. Check it out.

Renato Canova wrote:

All the best athletes I coached NEVER had their haematocrit higher than 45. However, there are personal differences : for example, the Italian Record Holder of 1500m, Genny Di Napoli (3'32"78), absolutely natural athlete similar Kenyans, had normally 18.5 of Hemoglobin with hematocrit higher than 50, and when had 17.2 he felt in anaemia.

This is what I know, and this is what ALL the coaches working with top athletes know. This is NOT what doctors working with cyclists know, because in their mind the values are the CAUSE, not the EFFECT. And that's the reason because there are NO cyclists racing without using supports, mostly legal (but the border line between what is legal and what is doping is very thin, and sometimes not possible to define).

So what you're saying is that the doctors (Ferrari/Fuentes/Cecchini, etc) that are/were involved in cycling actually don't know what they're doing when it comes to blood doping, but you, with your vast experience of NOT doping athletes know the score exactly?

I presume you follow a little bit of cycling? The difference between a cyclist that is 'on it' compared to when they're not is huge. We all saw how guys like Schumacher and Ricco performed during a time when the was starting to be a crack-down and not so many guys were juicing. They seemed superhuman. Once they stopped, just normal riders again. Don't try to tell me it's psychological.

Renato - why do you test your athletes' hemocrit?

Renato Canova wrote:

This is NOT what doctors working with cyclists know, because in their mind the values are the CAUSE, not the EFFECT. And that's the reason because there are NO cyclists racing without using supports, mostly legal (but the border line between what is legal and what is doping is very thin, and sometimes not possible to define).

I agree with everything you say here, Renato; especially your last comment on the borderline between what is legal and what is doping.

That's what I was trying to educate people about by repeatedly bringing up Salazar, though his "support" is the norm.

It's also very clear that in the next few years, with the proliferation of research chems online, there will be even less of a line between legal and illegal doping.

So, instead of trying to sweep the issue under the rug, why shouldn't it be addressed in detail, openly, on a forum such as this? What better place is there? It's the one positive aspect of poster anonymity IMO.

Most people understand the bogus THEORY (not true) of vaccinations, hence the example in those terms. That is not to say that one is a proponent or BELIEVES that they work, as they don't. Notice Renato's comment on page 3 of this thread.

I also never get any vaccination, and I never get sick. But if I get sick then I overcome it on my own, based on MY OWN IMMUNITY, not taking some drug that destroys it.

Improvements in sanitation. I don't have time at the moment but maybe later can post a chart showing this correlation.

There is certainly NO correlation with medical poisoning and longevity, nor with health! In fact the opposite is the case. NO ONE can be healthy when saturated with toxic medical agents and drugs.

In 2000 I was the Technical Scientific Director of Italian Federation. In July, I was in St. Moritz with a group of Italian athletes, including Maura Viceconte (NR in marathon winning Vienna in May with 2:23:47 and 32'05" of PB in 10000), Silvia Sommaggio (31'59" PB) and Sara Ferrari (33'03" PB), daughter of dr. Michele Ferrari.

How we use every two months, I had a blood test with all the group, for controlling the current situation. The 3 athletes had hematocrit between 38.2 (Sommaggio) and 39.6 (Viceconte), with hemoglobin between 11.2 (Sommaggio) and 11.8 (Ferrari).

When we received the results, Sara spoke with her father, who came St. Moritz for speaking with me. He was very worry about the results of these athletes, preparing the meeting in Heusden for trying the Olympic limit. I told him their training was very good, but he didn't believe possible to have good results with so low level of hematocrit.

We went Heusden, and the results were as follows :

Maura Viceconte 31:05.57 (NR, improving her PB of 1:00)

Silvia Sommaggio 31:24.12 (2nd national performance)

Sara Ferrari 32:25.44 (improvement of 38.0)

What does it mean this fact ? That Ferrari doesn't know what is doing ? No, it means that :

a) Cyclism and Running are two different sports. Runners have to stay at even pace for long time, and have to control the level of their lactate, because, if you go over your personal threshold, NEVER you can reduce that level while running. Instead, cyclists have a very low fatigue when in the group, with heart rate about 100, almost like people seated behind a desk, and after this have to go very fast, producing lactate at high level (over 18 mml). After, they have again the opportunity to recover. So, a cyclist must have the attitude of a 800m runner, instead of a marathon runner, more similar to cyclists "grimpeur".

When a cyclist wants to increase the speed, needs to use more muscle strength, because needs, for example, to use a gear with one tooth more. So, they can have advantage by some drug enhancing the strength (steroids, Grow Hormon), more than from EPO.

On the opposite, runners of long distance don't need very high power, but the ability in using a high percentage of it for long time. For improving this ability, they need a blood with low viscosity, in order to increase the velocity of the circulation and to reduce the work of the heart.

I explained before that the best athletes are able, with high mileage at high intensity, to increase of 20/25% their total volume of blood. This is possible with training only : with EPO they can reach the same ability in transporting oxygen, but with very high viscosity.

In any case, athletes with low mileage can have advantage using EPO, but NEVER can reach the same results possible with very hard and correct training. Instead it's true that athletes using in their training a lot of intervals at high speed (lactic training) need a very high aerobic support. Therefore, it's very easy to see in training who can use some drug and who doesn't use : if an athlete is able to train with fast intervals for long time, without losing his shape (on the contrary increasing his efficiency), and without using strong aerobic training, he is under doping, because he needs the aerobic support, but doesn't train in that direction. But, if we see athletes using strong aerobic training and fast intervals, they don't use any doping, because EPO in this case is useless.

At the end of every comment, we can say that using EPO can be a shortcut for arriving at the same level you can reach with tough training, but not to overtake that level. This for short distances, where the duration is not penalized by the high viscosity. Longer is the distance, less is the effect of EPO, and in long distances athletes can run faster WITHOUT any type of drug. There is a limit in the possibility to increase the ability in transporting oxygen, and if you have 1 liter of blood more in your body, you need very low viscosity. So, the situations can be summarized in this way :

1) EPO with high viscosity

2) More blood with low viscosity

It's not possible to have more blood with high viscosity, because when we have to do a even effort for long time at high intensity this situation is very dangerous, and doesn't work in any practical way.

2) The doctors of cyclism have experience about the fact the use of doping can enhance the performances of the cyclists, BUT DON'T HAVE EXPERIENCES ABOUT HOW A CORRECT TRAINING CAN ENHANCE THE SAME PERFORMANCES.

When you want to do a research, you need to use the so called "double blind", for comparing the effects of the pharmac with the placebo effects. In the case of cyclism, NEVER THERE WAS SOMEBODY TRYING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH A CYCLIST USING EPO FOR SOME PERIOD, AND GOING COMPLETELY CLEAN BUT WITH MORE TOUGH TRAINING FOR ANOTHER PERIOD.

So, it's true that doping can give advantages with athletes with a low level of training ; but can't give any advantage for athletes using very hard and continuous training.

Different is the situation of the steroids : only looking at the WR in throwing and jumping, and the WR for women in sprint, jumps and throws, dated before 1988, it's clear that with the only training is not possible to reach the same level of muscle strength that athletes can reach using steroids.

Personally, I suppose the next frontier of medicine can be in the field of nervous system : the sprinters of today are not strong as muscle power like the sprinters of 20/30 years ago, but their frequency is higher. So, I think that, if there is some new doping, is in this field. And everybody understand that there is no connection with what athletes of long endurance need.

J.R. wrote:

Surely you realize that ALL peer review studies are promoted by and MUST have the backing of the chemical corporations.

J.R., are you suggesting that its better to trust the "studies" which have NOT been peer reviewed? Like, maybe, posts on message boards? ;-)

Renato, thanks for this. Your insights are fascinating and compelling, as always.