How come "epo time" marathon times were weak?

casual obsever wrote:

"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?

Juliet Macur and David Walsh are two Armstrong - biographers with very little if any reason to whitewash his pre-1995 results and they vouch for the timeline that Armstrong started taking rEPO in 1995. Among other evidence, this conclusion is based on the sworn affidavits of his team members provided to the USADA in their case against the USPS and some are not in friendlist terms with Armstrong, among them his former Motorola teammate Stephen Swart.

Swart not only testified against him in the SCA case and in addition claimed that Lance bribed other teams in order to win $1,000,000 in a series of races known as Thrift Drug Classic race in 1993.

The consensus view is also that Armstrong started taking rEPO on his own in 1995, but started his collaboration with Ferrari only in November that year. As one does not need much guidance in order to use the substance, it is always possible that his habit started earlier, but I see little reason why even people with antagonistic attitude towards him hold this particular '95 timeline.

I'm not the one fooling you.Contrary to your characterization, I don't maintain, or want to maintain, that "EPO does not work", and don't dispute generally that "EPO works" in many contexts, but have always argued specifically about the magnitude of the effect of EPO on real performances "at the top". Estimates from studies of 3-6% is surely a gross over-estimation.If you want a concession, I'll leave open "the possibility" that it can work "at the top" for everyone, on some kind of "diminishing returns" basis, but reiterate that we haven't seen yet that EPO can lead any athlete to super-normal performances.It's not the set of evidence that distinguishes me and you. You and I use exactly the same body of evidence, but differ in what we think the evidence shows, and more specifically for whom under what conditions. We have different ideas about when and what is OK to extrapolate.You rejected my arguments about East versus North Africans versus non-Africans showing different patterns of progression as being significant. I'm not the one that claimed EPO works on East Africans like everyone else, but if that's true, I contend we need to find other explanations than EPO for East African and North African improvements.If you want another concession, I will concede that EPO works "at the top" for East Africans, and North Africans, but not by a magnitude larger than expected for top sea-level athletes of non-African origin relative to a pre-EPO top time.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

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.

The accounts of the post Milan San-Remo race bus ride come from Hincapie and Swart. Also, in a sworn affidavit, "Swart believed that Armstrong’s EPO use began in 1995."But I'm sure you know better than his teammate, without any direct inside knowledge or other evidence. I tend to give more weight to the findings of an extensively researched investigation.How do you always know things like "USADA did nothing"? The normal mode of doping agencies is to investigate in secrecy, and only publish things they find once a conviction is achieved and all appeals are exhausted.I'm not that clear on overlapping jurisdictions, but I guess the UCI took the main responsibility for Lance during international competitions.

casual obsever wrote:

"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?

Kid running after kipchoge wrote:

Well how this argument fits with the very fast marathon times of today?

Do you honestly think how quickly Kenyan athletes come-and-go at the elite international podium level that any of them could possibly be clean? Athletes can and do dope with impunity.

The IAAF is perfectly fine with doping. It means bribery revenue to never test positive. The last leader of the IAAF is rotting in prison over demanding and receiving anti-doping bribes. Coe would not have been elected if he wasn't part of the corruption club.

Why isn't this common knowledge?

No I don't. Why don't you stick to the facts for a change?

But until two hours ago, all you and Aragon brought up were statements from Armstrong (utterly irrelevant) and USADA saying that Ferrari didn't help Armstrong before 1995, which does not prove that Armstrong was EPO-free before Ferrari.

In any case, thank you, and Aragon, for Swart and Hincapie.

There was no visible action from USADA before 2010, though Armstrong doped virtually unlimited according to USADA itself - in Europe and the US - in 2001, 2002, 2003, ... Shameful.

As for your alleged "normal mode of doping agency", no. We all knew about USADA's investigation into Armstrong long before a conclusion. We also know about USADA's investigation into Salazar. There are also plenty of examples of leaked positive A tests before the B tests, let along before "all appeals are exhausted".

rekrunner wrote:

If you want a concession, I'll leave open "the possibility" that it can work "at the top" for everyone, on some kind of "diminishing returns" basis, but reiterate that we haven't seen yet that EPO can lead any athlete to super-normal performances.

LOL. Check out Bjarne Riis' inexplicable international elite "average" to grand tour podium field destroyer. How many more EPO positives do you need in distance events to make it obvious?

It's a miracle drug for endurance sports. If used responsibly, there are NO consequences to taking it besides returning to your baseline blood cell production.

Rekrunner, you are doing a better job at distilling your false claims in fewer sentences.

Here's a couple of ridiculous Riis rides that are completely ridiculous, and highlight the magic of EPO:

Phil and Paul totally clueless.

rekrunner wrote:

But I'm sure you know better than his teammate, without any direct inside knowledge or other evidence.

Please stop posting ridiculous doubts like this. Armstrong was a drug-fueled athlete since Carmichael and Wenzel were running a national doping program at USA Cycling.

Note the date on the report. 2001. Read the story..

rekrunner wrote:

How do you always know things like "USADA did nothing"?

Because they have no authority to do anything. There is a reason USATF hasn't touched Salazar's doping program. They have no authority to do anything. At all.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm not that clear on overlapping jurisdictions, but I guess the UCI took the main responsibility for Lance during international competitions.

Because you "just believe" without any basis in fact. The UCI is the only authority for sanctions and the IAAF is the sole authority for sanctions in running. Anti-doping agencies can only recommend. If you understood the arbitration process, you'd know the results are a foregone conclusion.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

The IAAF is perfectly fine with doping. It means bribery revenue to never test positive. The last leader of the IAAF is rotting in prison over demanding and receiving anti-doping bribes. Coe would not have been elected if he wasn't part of the corruption club.

Why isn't this common knowledge?

It is common knowledge here. We just don't want it to be true, and only see dopers in other countries or sports.

And then there are the letsrun trolls and the PR shills.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

LOL. Check out Bjarne Riis' inexplicable international elite "average" to grand tour podium field destroyer. How many more EPO positives do you need in distance events to make it obvious?

It's a miracle drug for endurance sports. If used responsibly, there are NO consequences to taking it besides returning to your baseline blood cell production.

Rekrunner, you are doing a better job at distilling your false claims in fewer sentences.

Here's a couple of ridiculous Riis rides that are completely ridiculous, and highlight the magic of EPO:

I believe if you look up "high-responder to O2-vector doping" you'll see Riis' picture there.😄 He rode for Gewiss–Ballan in 94 & 95 where Dr. EPO was working his magic as the team physician (Riis transferred to Telekom in 96 where they had their own systematic EPO program).

Getting back to Gewiss- Ballan; they were killing it producing Giro winners and dominating the spring classics. Some of the riders on the team from Ferrari's files have had their baseline Hct's and target levels disclosed and published. For example, Riis shows a baseline Hct of 41.1% increased to 56.3% Another rider listed had an enormous increase from 32% to 60%! 😨 See the doping section under Gewiss–Ballan's Wikipedia page for further:

This is nothing special, my dear old dad could do that blindfolded after a 25 hour work day, with arthritis, where he earned a six pence for all that effort.

This was back in the good old +50%hct days when Italian mad scientists turned naive young athletes into Frankenstein endurance monsters. Hmmmm, naive young athletes, hmmm, Italian mad scientists. Where have I heard that one before?

You're welcome.I think USADA had nothing substantial (could not make a case) to go forward with until they received the email from Landis.I recall at that time that WADA's Dick Pound was the one putting pressure on the UCI. My own theory was the motivation for getting Lance would make the newly formed WADA relevant and respected.Regarding the leaks, I think they never come from USADA, but from federations, public documentaries, and Fancy Bears hacks, unless you have examples. Besides the big name investigations that make headlines, the public generally has no idea which athletes are currently have cases open, or which athletes had cases open and closed in intermediate stages as negative.

casual obsever wrote:

...

In any case, thank you, and Aragon, for Swart and Hincapie.

...

There was no visible action from USADA before 2010, though Armstrong doped virtually unlimited according to USADA itself - in Europe and the US - in 2001, 2002, 2003, ... Shameful.

As for your alleged "normal mode of doping agency", no. We all knew about USADA's investigation into Armstrong long before a conclusion. We also know about USADA's investigation into Salazar. There are also plenty of examples of leaked positive A tests before the B tests, let along before "all appeals are exhausted".

Actually, Oprah was more effective at getting the truth out of Armstrong than USADA (or WADA).😂😂😉

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Please stop posting ridiculous doubts like this. Armstrong was a drug-fueled athlete since Carmichael and Wenzel were running a national doping program at USA Cycling.

Note the date on the report. 2001. Read the story..

I'm aware of the rumors under Carmichael. Your story did not actually mention Armstrong taking EPO though.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Because they have no authority to do anything. There is a reason USATF hasn't touched Salazar's doping program. They have no authority to do anything. At all.

...

Because you "just believe" without any basis in fact. The UCI is the only authority for sanctions and the IAAF is the sole authority for sanctions in running. Anti-doping agencies can only recommend. If you understood the arbitration process, you'd know the results are a foregone conclusion.

Please stop posting ridiculous things like this.

rekrunner wrote:

If you want another concession, I will concede that EPO works "at the top" for East Africans, and North Africans, but not by a magnitude larger than expected for top sea-level athletes of non-African origin relative to a pre-EPO top time.

It also seems to work "at the top" of racewalking, as EPO is widely used in that sport:

Indeed we have plenty of examples from cycling.In 1998-2013 (see link below), an analysis of the top 10 places in the Tour de France, show a remarkable 38% confirmed dopers, up to 65% with clear links to doping, or strongly suspected.In the Armstrong years (1999-2005) the percentage rises to an astonishing 87% -- 61 out of 70 athletes with only 9 (13%) unblemished by doping (yet).That's even higher than the results of the recently published Tubingen surveys.There is no denying that the top-10 cyclists doped, with few (if any) exceptions.How many EPO positives do I need? Since you asked, in an EPO discussion at lets"RUN".com, I don't need any from cycling (or racewalking).I will concede that 4 "convicted dopers" out of the top 10, or 6 "convicted dopers+clear doping links+suspected dopers" out of the top 10 would be pretty futile to argue against.Can anyone produce just half of these percentages for any distance running event:- for the men?- for the women (excluding women using male hormones)?See:http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2014/12/31/cycling-in-the-epo-era-65-per-cent-dirty-and-probably-more-311201/

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

If you want a concession, I'll leave open "the possibility" that it can work "at the top" for everyone, on some kind of "diminishing returns" basis, but reiterate that we haven't seen yet that EPO can lead any athlete to super-normal performances.

LOL. Check out Bjarne Riis' inexplicable international elite "average" to grand tour podium field destroyer. How many more EPO positives do you need in distance events to make it obvious?

It's a miracle drug for endurance sports.

...

Yes. Race walking. I'll copy this at "letswalk.com/forum"I think the Russian scandal gives us a clear indication of where drugs worked -- women's events and race walking.

Endurance Sport Doping wrote:

It also seems to work "at the top" of racewalking, as EPO is widely used in that sport:

Endurance Sport Doping wrote:

It also seems to work "at the top" of racewalking, as EPO is widely used in that sport:

When you link to these endless lists of rEPO users, in the end what does it actually tell if that many athletes use rEPO?

1) That they expect to gain 5-20 % improvement (more speed, higher FTP...) in their performance with the substance?

...or...

2) When they look at the world, they see enough hysterical/ anecdotal/ scientific evidence that the performance gain is enough to give it a try even when they discount the financial cost and the possibility of getting caught?

These players also know that unlike many products (HGH, T, steroids, corticosteroids, stimulants) rEPO has very little health hazards if used correctly nor has there been many cases of possible drop of performance reported (there might be one or two who tested positive bitching and whining how it didn't help at all, but who believes them anyway?).

The crucial question then is what is enough in terms of performance gain? In 2016, the difference between the 1st and the 23rd at the 5000m world list was less than one percent (12:59.29 vs. 13:06.78), at the 3000m, the gap was similar between the 1st and the 7th, and at the 1500m it was 1st vs 6th. When you add that many athletes use many expensive items with far less science to back their efficacy, it should be a no-brainer that many have succumbed to use rEPO which still is a relatively cheap product. They don't even have to "know" that they gain anything, just to think that the possibility exists particularly when they assume simultaneously that many of their competitors will try the shortcut.

The benefit might be even 5-20 percent in "performance", but that doesn't directly follow even if you were able to prove that every endurance athlete has used the product since 1988 when the Swiss authorities were the first ones to approve the use of the product.

rekrunner wrote:

Indeed we have plenty of examples from cycling.

In 1998-2013 (see link below), an analysis of the top 10 places in the Tour de France, show a remarkable 38% confirmed dopers, up to 65% with clear links to doping, or strongly suspected.

In the Armstrong years (1999-2005) the percentage rises to an astonishing 87% -- 61 out of 70 athletes with only 9 (13%) unblemished by doping (yet).

That's even higher than the results of the recently published Tubingen surveys.

Well, but is that really a significant difference to athletics? Note that those statistics are for the top-10 places, with many repeat offenders such as Armstrong and Ullrich, and include "strongly suspected".

Now the authors from Tübingen (try alt-129 for the ü) and Harvard found 43.6% admitted dopers (95% confidence interval 39.4–47.9) at the world championship, averaged over all participants, and argued that the real number is likely higher (mostly because not all dopers would admit it, not fully trusting the promised anonymity).

I think it's safe to say that the percentage among the finalists is much higher than among the also-rans (also corroborated by Seppelt's data), and thus also than the average of all participants.

Also, why would it be different? The same organizations, e.g. USADA and UKAD, are in charge of controlling both sports, and it would be hard to seriously argue that runners are more honest humans than cyclists. On top of that, we have more runners from poorly controlled regions than cyclists. Plus, the IAAF doping scandal was worse than the UCI's.