Sorry, don't know. I left Kenya early February and haven't been in contact with the guy. Since then, I've been busy with my runners. But, the BBC article confirms what I posted back in January. I suspect (don't know), there are some legal shenanigans going on. When it is released, I will give some context, regarding what I know. Beyond that, can't help.
Barrel of Laughs wrote:
I could care less about trying to persuade you...
So, let's see what another world-renowned coach has to say: Canova states in this thread that he never said EPO doesn't increase performance in distance running (in response to a poster accusing him of stating that EPO doesn't increase performance). He follows that up by stating: "Blood manipulation is effective for athletes who don't use high altitude training, because can give the same effect" His statement isn't prefaced by "I believe" or anything like - it's a pretty specific statement on the effective of blood manipulation with athletes who don't use altitude training (which many don't).
If you aren't trying to persuade me to change my opinion, for example with opinions of experts, I can see no point in your replying to me at all.
Regarding what Canova said, I recently said the same thing in another thread -- EPO can work for everyone, even high altitude Kenyans, when they are aerobically unfit. But elite athletes, when in their top shape, tend to already be aerobically strong.
Armstronglivs wrote:
A central flaw in the argument that EPO doesn't offer an advantage superior to altitude training is that there would be no incentive to use EPO when altitude training could achieve the same or even better results. Why risk health or a career-ending ban for something that is readily replaced by a legitimate training method, particularly for athletes who live in countries that offer easy access to altitude training?
The rational decision would be to altitude train.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are effectively in the same position as rekrunner of not being able to give a definitive answer - because of an apparent lack of data. You can't be speaking from experience, unless you have doped your athletes.
On your main point, that training can surpass doping, it should firstly be noted that altitude training long preceded EPO yet it didn't achieve the kinds of performances that occurred later after the introduction of EPO.
When speaking of the experiences of thousands of athletes, it should also be noted, that even after EPO was introduced, most of the athletics world didn't achieve the kinds of performances that occurred later, despite very high prevalance in several of these nations. This seems counter-intuitive assuming high global prevalence and high effect for elites.
Because there are other CLEAN athletes with more talent or, in some case, better training, coached by other coaches.ù
So, your question ca only demonstrate that the stupidity is without limits.
Do you think the fact some athletes take EPO also during training in altitude can be a reason for thinking they are right ?
Many years ago, at the time of doping with steroids for the Soviet Block (including URSS, East Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania), the Russian Methodologists introduced training with heavy weights, supported by steroids, for jumpers. The best athlete they had in long jump was Valeriy Podluzhny, PB of 8.18 and medal in Moscow Olympics. Podluzhny, like before him Ter Ovanesyan, never used heavy weights in their training. The Russian coaches thought that, with more muscle strength built with weights, Podluzhny could become very much better, but in the next 6 years he never was able to jump more than 8 meters, because gaining strengt lost elasticity and reactivity. In that period, all the athletes of the Soviet Block used to increase their strength with heavy weights, and nobody improved, till when the coach of Emmiyan decided to reduce weights increasing training of speed and plyometric.
In 2004, Yury Borzakovskiy won 800m in Olympics (Athens) after 4 full months of indoor training during winter, and the most part of coaches said "for 800m a full indoor season is very important", without thinking he was 3 months in Moscow with temperature under 20° negative.
In 2008 Wilfred Bungei won, and in 2012 Rudisha. They never had the indoor season before Olympics, and Rudisha never ran one indoor race.
Put in your mind that, like in training, in doping there is FASHION. The majority of athletes follow the training system who produced results for somebody else, and, if not correct, follow the DOPING SYSTEM that has more "audience", because don't have any knowledge about the real effects (does it work ? doesn't work ? if Others do, it's because can produce results, so I can follow the same way). They use exactly your way of thinking, obviously not the most scientific and clever way for understanding if the solution is good or not.
When I say that people like you, overrating the effects of doping on the performances, are the FIRST TESTIMONIAL FOR DOPING, I mean exactly this : maybe that doping is widespread among the athletes, but of sure is more widespread among people thinking NOT POSSIBLE running at the top in clean way, who are the one WIDESPREADING the idea of doping = result.
Renato Canova wrote:
Do you think the fact some athletes take EPO also during training in altitude can be a reason for thinking they are right ?
Many years ago, at the time of doping with steroids for the Soviet Block (including URSS, East Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania), the Russian Methodologists introduced training with heavy weights, supported by steroids, for jumpers. The best athlete they had in long jump was Valeriy Podluzhny, PB of 8.18 and medal in Moscow Olympics. Podluzhny, like before him Ter Ovanesyan, never used heavy weights in their training. The Russian coaches thought that, with more muscle strength built with weights, Podluzhny could become very much better, but in the next 6 years he never was able to jump more than 8 meters, because gaining strengt lost elasticity and reactivity. In that period, all the athletes of the Soviet Block used to increase their strength with heavy weights, and nobody improved, till when the coach of Emmiyan decided to reduce weights increasing training of speed and plyometric.
In 2004, Yury Borzakovskiy won 800m in Olympics (Athens) after 4 full months of indoor training during winter, and the most part of coaches said "for 800m a full indoor season is very important", without thinking he was 3 months in Moscow with temperature under 20° negative.
In 2008 Wilfred Bungei won, and in 2012 Rudisha. They never had the indoor season before Olympics, and Rudisha never ran one indoor race.
Put in your mind that, like in training, in doping there is FASHION. The majority of athletes follow the training system who produced results for somebody else, and, if not correct, follow the DOPING SYSTEM that has more "audience", because don't have any knowledge about the real effects (does it work ? doesn't work ? if Others do, it's because can produce results, so I can follow the same way). They use exactly your way of thinking, obviously not the most scientific and clever way for understanding if the solution is good or not.
When I say that people like you, overrating the effects of doping on the performances, are the FIRST TESTIMONIAL FOR DOPING, I mean exactly this : maybe that doping is widespread among the athletes, but of sure is more widespread among people thinking NOT POSSIBLE running at the top in clean way, who are the one WIDESPREADING the idea of doping = result.
Everything you say about doping is conjecture - as it is with much of the comment that you disagree with on this board - because you have no experience in coaching athletes who dope and indeed no contact with any athlete who dopes (as far as we - or you - know).
In the words of rekrunner, it is only your "belief" that training is more effective than EPO because you have no direct experience or knowledge of how EPO works in practice to make a fully-informed comparison. (Again, in rekrunner's terms, you haven't dealt with "confounders"). Perhaps, like rekrunner, you need to do more reading to be expert? Mind you, that's all he's done.
The Stablemaster wrote:
Sorry, don't know. I left Kenya early February .
For good, hopefully. Should you start to doubt the decision, please look into the neighbouring countries I suggested. They'll be so much more hospitable than Kenya's been to you. Bye-bye, nonetheless.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
A central flaw in the argument that EPO doesn't offer an advantage superior to altitude training is that there would be no incentive to use EPO when altitude training could achieve the same or even better results. Why risk health or a career-ending ban for something that is readily replaced by a legitimate training method, particularly for athletes who live in countries that offer easy access to altitude training?
The rational decision would be to altitude train.
Strange they don't do that. Perhaps they know that EPO enhances performance more than altitude training. Experience has shown them that - and not your reading.
rekrunner wrote:
Barrel of Laughs wrote:
I could care less about trying to persuade you...
So, let's see what another world-renowned coach has to say: Canova states in this thread that he never said EPO doesn't increase performance in distance running (in response to a poster accusing him of stating that EPO doesn't increase performance). He follows that up by stating: "Blood manipulation is effective for athletes who don't use high altitude training, because can give the same effect" His statement isn't prefaced by "I believe" or anything like - it's a pretty specific statement on the effective of blood manipulation with athletes who don't use altitude training (which many don't).
If you aren't trying to persuade me to change my opinion, for example with opinions of experts, I can see no point in your replying to me at all.
Regarding what Canova said, I recently said the same thing in another thread -- EPO can work for everyone, even high altitude Kenyans, when they are aerobically unfit. But elite athletes, when in their top shape, tend to already be aerobically strong.
Laughable. EPO works for couch potatoes but not the super-fit. The same risible argument could be made for any form of doping, that it only helps the inferior or the unfit, but we see that doping improves even the very best. Your arguments are not simply ill-informed, they are cloddish.
Renato Canova wrote:
Because there are other CLEAN athletes with more talent or, in some case, better training, coached by other coaches.ù
So, your question ca only demonstrate that the stupidity is without limits.
So your athletes are not the best and maybe not coached the best way. Maybe you aren't such a legend, after all.
Sorry to disappoint you, lad. But if you're about, I'd be more than happy to meet you...
The Stablemaster wrote:
Sorry, don't know. I left Kenya early February and haven't been in contact with the guy. Since then, I've been busy with my runners. But, the BBC article confirms what I posted back in January. I suspect (don't know), there are some legal shenanigans going on. When it is released, I will give some context, regarding what I know. Beyond that, can't help.
well at least you have more honesty and transparency than the other entities and gary lol
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The rational decision would be to altitude train.
Strange they don't do that. Perhaps they know that EPO enhances performance more than altitude training. Experience has shown them that - and not your reading.
or here is the TRUTH...doing EPO while training at altitude is the double whammy....the trifecta is to add in the taking the blood out, saving it then blood doping it back in during the WC and olympics...which is what im guessing ramzi and sumgong did.
The Stablemaster wrote:
Sorry to disappoint you, lad. But if you're about, I'd be more than happy to meet you...
Well it should be easy if you live in london lolz
So the most talented and best trained track athletes all appeared 15-25 years ago. After that they died out and the superior training was forgotten.
You can imagine how much faster my athletes having the WR could have run if had more talent and a better coach….. while other more talented athletes, and with a better training, need taking EPO for running slower ! This is of course a good confirmation of your thesis.
What I see is that your presumption is without limits, exactly as your IGNORANCE of training at top level.
Your experience is due to what you read only, and you read about all researches that have nothing to do with proper training and top performances.
While rekrunner looks at the controlled official infos only (this is a scientific approach), you look at hypothesis without any confirmation (this is approach using your belly and not your brain).
Renato Canova wrote:
You can imagine how much faster my athletes having the WR could have run if had more talent and a better coach….. while other more talented athletes, and with a better training, need taking EPO for running slower ! This is of course a good confirmation of your thesis.
What I see is that your presumption is without limits, exactly as your IGNORANCE of training at top level.
Your experience is due to what you read only, and you read about all researches that have nothing to do with proper training and top performances.
While rekrunner looks at the controlled official infos only (this is a scientific approach), you look at hypothesis without any confirmation (this is approach using your belly and not your brain).
Um, your athletes don't have any of those records.
physics defiant wrote:
Renato Canova wrote:
You can imagine how much faster my athletes having the WR could have run if had more talent and a better coach….. while other more talented athletes, and with a better training, need taking EPO for running slower ! This is of course a good confirmation of your thesis.
What I see is that your presumption is without limits, exactly as your IGNORANCE of training at top level.
Your experience is due to what you read only, and you read about all researches that have nothing to do with proper training and top performances.
While rekrunner looks at the controlled official infos only (this is a scientific approach), you look at hypothesis without any confirmation (this is approach using your belly and not your brain).
Um, your athletes don't have any of those records.
Renato, you haven't addressed my point, that as a coach you have had no experience of working with dopers. So what are you basing your knowledge of doping on? Rekrunner's posts?
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The rational decision would be to altitude train.
Strange they don't do that. Perhaps they know that EPO enhances performance more than altitude training. Experience has shown them that - and not your reading.
Or perhaps it's an irrational belief based on the perceived experiences of others. If only we had the data of these experiences we could form an informed opinion.