jemima sumgong went from being a 2.29 marathon runner ,to 2.20.are these improvements normal for an EPO user?

test2 wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Great, I look forward to the release of that data and to see what it can show us.

The data would no doubt be of general interest, so thank you, but a data set, no matter how huge, cannot tell us anything definitive about exogenous EPO if none of the subjected were administered EPO.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm holding off on making any assumptions or drawing any conclusions until I can actually see the dataset and what is in it.

It will be interesting to analyze in any case.

jeff tallon wrote:

do all EPO users lop almost 10 minutes off their personal bests in marathons? or is jemima the exception,not the rule? ive read somewhere users can expect about a 6% improvement on high dose EPO and about half that,on micro dosing.wow,it must be some drug !

I haven't read through all of the posts, but I think a 9 minute improvement for a female marathoner in one year is possible. Albeit, she would have to increase her training load, which is perhaps the main benefit of EPO. You also need to have talent and potential. Basically meaning Sumgong probably could have run much faster than 2:29 without EPO; however, she probably would not have improved by 9 minuets and it probably would taken her years. With all of that said, I don't think a 2:20 female marathoner on EPO would improve by 9 minutes.

Separate subject: When KK ran 2:05 in 1999, it was considered one the most amazing feats in distance running because 2:07/8 would win most MMs. 2:05 remained the standard for nearly a decade. Only a couple athlete with incredible credentials like Geb, Tergat bettered that time. Then around 2010 East Africans start dropping 2:04s like rain water. Many of these athletes were previously unheralded, some had almost no marks in other events. Interestingly, a lot the incredible times were run in Dubai which has questionable testing. Some of these athletes would win a few other sub-majors and then disappear. What I found interesting is nearly all of these athletes had European coaches, some of whom were hold overs from the 1980s.

Did you see that little Chinese swimmer girl in London 2012, swam the last 50m quicker than Phelps, Lochte etc she was never seen before this and hasn't been seen since. The rules should be if you want to take part in elite sanctioned senior races you need to be tested regularly for 12-18 prior to joining. The road races have weak testing too. 60 euros for epo, $5k for third in the Gold Coast marathon, $6k for fifth in the Hong Kong marathon, when GDP per person is only $1,500. It makes perfect sense and you don't have to win.

Subway, your proposal is correct, but faces a big problem : do you know how much is the cost of every OOC test ? And do you know how many athletes compete from Kenya and Ethiopia in the road races in all the World (more than 1000) ? And do you know that the majority of these athletes can win a marathon with 10000 USD of first prize, due to the weakness of the other runners ? And do you know that for making effective your proposal athletics needs not less than 10000 - 15000 tests per year ? This means a cost not inferior of 3 million USD only for testing Kenyans and Ethiopian runners before they can go to compete, and frankly to increase every year the amount of money for antidoping, reducing at the same time the money used for developing athletics in these Countries, doesn't seem to me the right solution.

How much is the cost of OOC testing? 30, 50, 100, 200$?

All those guys starting in Boston or N. York etc. - who pays them for airplane tickets - by themselves, organizers?

So if 3M is required Nike will pay or runners agents, or national federation or they will not compete. It is not that they must compete, that is not basic human right, if I'm excellent student that doesn't mean that I can go to Harvard if I don't have money for that. There must be minimum required OOC tests carried out on you if you want compete, otherwise you will be able once you get enough of tests - until that time you can compete on small / local / whatever marathons, but OG & WC must be out of reach.

If major marathons decide to not accept anymore runners without proper OOC testing - money will be found very fast.

The problem doesn't regard the top athletes who can run in one of the Majors.

Among all the Kenyans caught doped, only Rita Jeptoo, Jemima Sumgong and Mathew Kisorio were athletes interesting the Majors, that pay a lot of money privately for making tests OOC.

The problem regards the thousand runners around the world, who run in marathons of medium-low level, or in road races, and can't be controlled before the race.

The cost of a test is by far very much higher than what you think. You look at the cost of the lab only, but you must add the cost of travel and accommodation for the testers, that is the main source of the expenditures for WADA and IAAF antidoping system. If the top athletes could, in theory, face the global cost of a control (for a serious test the cost is about 1000 USD), it's unfair to ask normal athletes, who don't reach 10000 USD of winning prizes in one year, to spend more than what they CAN win in order to compete.

We are again in the situation opposite to the reality.

Can you walk for a normal street, asking some people to demonstrate they are not thieves ? Of course, this is something absurd. But you must understand that, asking all the athletes to demonstrate that they are clean, means to start from the supposition everybody is doped, and this is not acceptable. You must educate everybody, in the sport, to have an ethic vision, you must make tests for discovering who cheats, but you can't ask clean people to demonstrate they are clean : it's you that have to demonstrate somebody is outlaw, because that's not the normality.

VO2maximum wrote:

Very interesting. Btw, where did you obtain the full text of this study? It's not indexed in PubMed nor accessible through Google Scholar.

It can be obtained through the website of Glasgow University:

While there are some rEPO-skeptic leanings in my thinking, I still wouldn't put too much stress on the different reactions before looking further on the hematological changes of the individual participants.

One must still mention that it looks immediately strange that there is so much Vo2MAX variation in the reactions of the Kenyan group and the fastest runner (~8:40) improved his time by only 2 % after the rEPO period whereas the slowest (~10:35-40ish) improved by over 10 %, a true outlier in the chart on page 97.

Okay...so all the dozens & dozens of elites over the last 2 decades caught using EPO (drug positives or passport sanctions) or blood doping (passport sanctions) never trainied at altitude and were never "at their top level of proper training?" And what exactly was their top level of proper training suppose to be? More speedwork? Higher mileage? Better recovery? And how would you know if these athletes hadn't already reached their natural limits of ability before initiated a PED program? Maybe they had reached their maximum mileage without sustaining injuries that would have occurred if they went beyond that limit. Same for reaching their upper limit of higher intensity workouts before breaking down and sustaining injuries (there's biomechanical limitations with some runners that is the impetus of chronic injuries). Perhaps they trained at altitude realizing that they lost the benefits once accalimized back at sea-level. How do you know EPO/blood doping didn't allow them to push through those barriers that they normally couldn't have accomplished clean? 🤔. Are the altitude-native Kenyan top elites the only athletes at "their top level of proper training" and rest of the top elites from around the world are a bunch of improperly trained substandard athletes?

I don't think it matters at the end of the day. IMO, if an elite who has reached their natural limit of ability and consequently utilizes 02-vector doping, or for that fact any PED use, to push through these limitations & barriers to improve performance and in many cases win titles & medals that they wouldn't have won clean, then the doping was significant and was a "game changer" for them. Case in point: Rashid Ramzi.

The Guardian report states he was only running 3:44's when he was 22 years old and didn't show much potential (3:44.85/2002/Stockholm). His sudden improvement started when he began training with Boulami in 2004 (altitude training perhaps? 😁). So, a 3:44 guy at 22 yoa eventually goes on to run a PB of 3:29.44 in 06 and along the way just happens to win the 800/1500 double at the 05 WCs and a silver at the 07 WCs. And looking back at his winning performance at the 05 WCs, the IAAF reports two (2) very high off-scores with him during that time period; 157 & 148 (IAAF blood-testing 2001-2012 page #4). Then in 08 he tests positive for the long glowing 3rd gen "CERA" after his winning performance in Beijing where he held off Kiprop at the line while annihilating the rest of a world-class field.

I'd call this the one of most ridiculous cases of a doper during that decade - the power of EPO (and maybe other PEDs used synergistically).

Said many times Micera was pure dymanite , alot better than normal epo . just look at bekele ,beating all when or wherever

that scottish article gives kenyans with natural higher hct when always told

the opposite , that lower than other europeans and other tribes in kenya

leading to better responce from epo.

................................................................................................................

also have norwegians in cross country bjorn dahlie from 1991 /92 on.

and at moment have a french man dominating biathlon but

doped and our friend speedy gonzales / igf-1 lr3 doing magic there.

dont think hit dutch speed skating , not till alot later.

with any new dope , there is trial and error period , and like paula

need right athlete ,right setting etc so not going to happen straight away

by 1994 , we see this with rise of riis / danish bjarne

a big man with low hct and reacts well to it ,

"there doping was at another level " . knew it better, good sourses .how far can push it , better team etc , perfected .

takes time to perfect ,sometimes get lucky straight away ,depends

Mate, epo is everywhere, Olympic rowing medalists suddenly retiring with heart troubles in their late-20s, Cofidis cycling team members with heart troubles in their early 20s, French triathletes retiring before 30 from heart problems then dieing a year later. Somebody posted the cyclists that died, the suspicious near misses are ,ore eye opening.

My question for those interested is epo (or hormonal drugs for that matter) harder to detect in men? I still can't believe that Makhloufi wasn't busted Ramzi-style in London.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Mate, epo is everywhere, Olympic rowing medalists suddenly retiring with heart troubles in their late-20s, Cofidis cycling team members with heart troubles in their early 20s, French triathletes retiring before 30 from heart problems then dieing a year later. Somebody posted the cyclists that died, the suspicious near misses are more eye opening.

My question for those interested is epo (or hormonal drugs for that matter) harder to detect in men? I still can't believe that Makhloufi wasn't busted Ramzi-style in London.

makhloufi looks to be on steroids as well as epo.whatever hes on has given him a very cyborg like appearence.he looks like a laboratory experiment.

Canova, you will have plenty of time to work on this data from your prison cell. The walls are closing in, aren't they? You will soon be exposed.

Hotel Casonova wrote:

Canova, you will have plenty of time to work on this data from your prison cell. The walls are closing in, aren't they? You will soon be exposed.

Doping isn't a crime, mate. Add to it an Italian in Kenya with plausible deniability and suddenly the legal logistics get complicated, fast. Jama Aden is doing just fine.

As long as it isn't kilos of coke or heroin, there is no easily prosecuted crime and no one cares. The IAAF benefits from all the interest in fast times. Why would they stop doping?

jeff tallon wrote:

do all EPO users lop almost 10 minutes off their personal bests in marathons? or is jemima the exception,not the rule? ive read somewhere users can expect about a 6% improvement on high dose EPO and about half that,on micro dosing.wow,it must be some drug !

What follows is a gross over-simplification of the nature of the relationship between hematocrit, power and speed. However, it should help some of you understand what EPO can and can not do. Essentially, donkey's are not turning into thoroughbreds.

For every 1% increase of hct over baseline we see ~ .38%-.62% increase in aerobic power and ~ .14%-.23% increase in speed for a runner. As has been stated by our resident famed Italian coach, elites will get less return on their investment in terms of percent improvement.

Elites: 1% increase in hct over baseline =~ .146% increase in aerobic derived speed

Recreational: 1% increase in hct over baseline =~ .236% increase in aerobi derived speed

(Note that going from 40% to 41% is not a 1% increase over baseline. It is a 2.5% increase given that 1/40 = 2.5%)

Elite: baseline hct of 40% increased to 50% = speed increase of ~ 3.6%

Rec: baseline hct of 40% increased to 50% = speed increase of ~ 5.9%

Elite: 2:09:36 marathon turns into 2:04:55 with 3.6% increase of speed (difference between Clayton and Khannouchi)

Rec: 2:40:00 marathon turns into 2:30:30 with 5.9% increase of speed

Elite: 27:22 10K turns into 26:26 with 25% jump in hct (3.4% increase in speed due to ~5% of contribution being anaerobic) (difference between Rono and Tergat)

Rec: 29:30 10K turns into 27:51 with 25% jump in hct (5.6% increase in speed accounting for anaerobic contribution)

Elite: 7:39 3K turns into 7:24 with 3.1% increase of speed (approximate 15% contribution anaerobic) (essential difference between Keino and Bekele or Geb)

Rec: 8:30 3K turns into 8:00 with 5.9% increase of speed

Elite: 3:33 1500 turns into 3:27 with 25% increase in hct (approximate 25% contribution anaerobic) (difference between Ryun and Morceli)

Rec: 3:50 1500 turns into 3:39-40 with 25% increase in hct.

This is a good list of high level stupidities.

Following this idiotic parameters, we can see that some time pre-EPO in marathon (for example, Carlos Lopes 2:07:12 and Steve Jones 2:07:13) were already well under the current WR, if these athletes took EPO. Some athlete who I know for sure was completely clean, such as Nicholas Kemboi (26'30" in 10000m), with EPO had to run about 25'40". Shaheen on steeple had to run under 7'40".

Of course, if there is somebody thinking these stupidities can be true, athletics is going to finish.

So what your saying is, there is hope for me after all.

You're an embarrassment to the sport. Go away quietly.

Renato Canova wrote:

Can you walk for a normal street, asking some people to demonstrate they are not thieves ? Of course, this is something absurd. But you must understand that, asking all the athletes to demonstrate that they are clean,.

This is wrong.

The bio-passport tracks blood factors related to EPO use quite effectively as long as the IAAF orders blood tests. The IAAF knows in great detail who is/is not doping. There is also the steroid passport. I haven't checked the status of it recently.

It's not rocket science to release the annual data anonymized so the world can see how clean the international pool is/isn't. That's not going to happen because the IAAF is fundamentally a corrupt organization largely indifferent to doping.

I don't have the link handy, but my favorite research from Martial Saugy notes he "discovered" two doped athletes while discussing the population used in the research.