Dominguez detained in doping investigation

ghost wrote:

You got the French wrong - it should read "decourager les autres" as "encourager" would spur athletes to dope.

I actually got the French right. The expression "pour encourager les autres" isn't my own, it's a quotation from Voltaire's Candide. It is widely used by the French (as well as others) to indicate punishments that have more of a deterrent effect than a punishing effect.

Athletes should be encouraged not to cheat!

So I see. You think 25 years of watching TV is superior than 40 years of coaching national athletes and elite athletes. I know when I've watched track meets on TV, I was accutely aware of the long term developments over the past 6-10 years of all the athletes; their recent training over the last 6 months; recent events in the last 6 hours before the race; and their psychology during the last 6 minutes of the race. It would be hard to get this kind of insight, working directly with athletes, and meeting with other coaches of the other athletes, exchanging experiences and information.

No I didn't watch that race, and didn't make any conclusions about it. I just wonder how you can be so confident with so many of your predictions, given the enormous number of variables that can affect the outcome of every race.

Your exchange with Renato would make sense to me, if Renato were your lifelong buddy, and you were arguing about your favorite teams over a beer in a sports bar during some Championship playoffs.

Since we don't have, and won't have my proposed comprehensive study of the comprehensive effects of performance enhancing drugs and procedures, many of the conclusions you, and everyone else, seem to offer as conclusive facts, are simply hypothetical conjecture unsupported by data.

Dudley studied performance of different muscle fiber types by performing experiments on rats. While this has furthered our knowledge of different muscle fiber types, and suggests the kinds of training which may be better suited for different athletes, we must never forget that rats are not people. The applicability of this study must always be in the context of this fact.

Likewise, anecdotal evidence about 1500m Moroccan athletes testing positive for EPO, may lack applicability to any statements about blood doping for altitude born Kenyans and Ethiopians, who have been highly trained to near their maximum potential in 10000m.

Here's a hypothesis that comes to my mind. It's as unsupported as all the others, but how can we rule out that blood doping, and PEDs, simply make up for bad training choices. We don't yet know if many of these convicted "cheaters", could have achieved similar maximal performances, cleanly, if only they had the optimal training, psychology, and tactics.

That is, if you manage to train an athlete to his maximal potential, and give him the mentality to use it, maybe the benefit of PEDs becomes marginal. But if you train sub-optimally, taking PEDs can lead to large improvements compared to not taking them, because it leads to quicker recovery, and a higher volume of training, to make up the difference.

Since we don't know anyone's true potential, we don't know that PED's, or blood doping, allow one to perform past his potential. If bad training brings you to 95% of your potential, and PEDs add 4%, how do we know that good training couldn't also bring you to 99%?

Who is studying these kinds of questions?

I think that blood doping or EPO are red herrings. Psychosomatic effects only.

I don't agree with Renato on this issue, sometimes he talks as much bullshit as less knowledgeable people do.

Any runner in good health can be the best if he does the right training.

J.O. wrote:

I think that blood doping or EPO are red herrings. Psychosomatic effects only.

I don't agree with Renato on this issue, sometimes he talks as much bullshit as less knowledgeable people do.

Any runner in good health can be the best if he does the right training.

I presume you've never really watched any pro-cycling then?

no

it means i have seen more varied numbers of elites & elite races than a guy who has mostly coached 2nd rate italians most of his career & then some kenyans in last 15y

i'd back my experience of watching an athlete not known to either of us based on watching many races of their career against him

for example, it took about 5s for any seasoned watcher to decide that ramzi was an unbeatable lock for gold over 1500 in peking after that ridiculous 53s last lap in the prelim when he only pushed hard from what looked 300 - 350m out

no one needed to have seen any other prelim - that was gold sewn up there & then

i didn't even bother watching the final - it was pointless - ramzi was unbeatable off that prelim & almost certainly doping - waste of time watching a cheater win gold

then you clearly don't know tergat's history

5 wins in that race already in rain, heat, cold, etc

there were no reports of injury leading upto '00 race

he races x-country - he wins, that's his history - unless some guy in that race is in something like 26'40 shape or has serious shorter distance speed, like <7'30 in a slow race

err..

no one here needs reminding that if you can run 26'52 off only a hard last 1/2, you are in helluva lot better shape than 26'52

that race was remarkable in that mourhit was so happy despite being beaten that he was jumping up'n'down like he'd won the lottery - i have never seen a guy so happy when losing

there are no conclusive trials either of living near power lines leading to higher rates of brain cancers/leukaemias/etc, but i certainly ain't buying a house near them

the weight of anecdotal data is huge that they work & only a fool woud doubt them

ramzi went from a 3'39 guy to 3'30 in 1y & he even defeated hicham with it !!!

in '06 he ran 3'29.1 virtually solo after an opening 52s lap - that is worth 3'27 evened out !!!

he was never in anyone's wildest dreams a 3'27 calibre guy when he trailing races in 3'39

not interested in rodent studies

we have huge anecdotal data on doping - it's good enough for WADA - it's good enough for me

eh ??

you clearly don't remember hissou 26'38wr

they can run damn fast over 10k like east africans ( & he was likely clean ) - doping works for his compatriots over 1500 - you think he has a different physiology to them & epo woudn't have worked on him to maybe turn that 26'38wr to 26'20 - 26'25 if he had ??

you don't think these 3'35 guys ( non-kenyans ) aren't already training to their maximal ability ??

see above

eh ?

there have been scores of guys in history stuck at 3'35 year-after-year & training fulltime & probably trying variations to their programme - still stuck at 3'35 - that is their true potential - that is level of what guys like ramzi/kaouch were from experience - kaouch got to 3'31 from that ~ baseline level from doping, whereas ramzi looked to have gotten to 3'27 from it - both responded to varying degrees

then chouki, who was stuck at 3'33.8 for 2 years then slashed this to 3'30.8 on epo

it works on guys who have already been training maximally

no one

anecdotal evidence is more than strong enough to draw conclusions

Hissou is a different case, and there was never any indication that he doped. He had very decent basic speed (3.33/1500) and his progress over the years was very steady, and not at all surprising.

It is a pity he 'missed the boat' with regard to high earnings, and his injuries saw him off, before he showed how high he could reach. His ability to run at high speed for long was phenomenal. People ask me about Goumri....the marathon guy, from Morocco, and there is nothing suprising about his marathon, as he served his full apprenticeship on the track with good range such as 3.39/1500 and sub. 13 for 5000, so his pace was superb.

Guys like Goumri move to marathon for the race winnings, as with one good big city marathon place, he can make enough to go for a long time. With track racing only the top/top guys can make a living - the other guys basically make little and just cover their costs. With a guy like Goumri, who had the track pace, it is logical that running sub. 3 minute kms for 42km is doable provided he has good running economy and the correct biomechanics.

The Italian coaches don't generally like training the magreb athletes because they (the North Africans) tend to be temperamental and prone to spoilt behaviour once they start getting good. Look at Ramzi....no one had a good thing to say about him, and even in races, Ramzi was very nasty to his fellow runners, once even admonishing a fellow Bahraini (Kenyan origin) for challenging him in a race!

The Kenyans are much more quiet, respectful and malleable. If you give them a good program, they will follow it to the letter. Ethiopians are harder to handle compared with Kenyans as they are somewhat closer to Arabs in temperament and rather volatile. Dr Rosa, tried training magreb athletes but gave up in frustration. He only deals with Kenyans now.

Ghost in Saudi,

www.kfupm.edu.sa

ventolin^3 wrote:

as for scientific "experience" - i have no interest in making a career change to coaching for "piss-ant" money - if it offers $160k++ a year, i'd consider giving up my dayjob, which does pay that & no travel expenses

I didn´t know you could make that kind of money plowing corn fields.

Renato Canova wrote:

I said that THE BEST AFRICAN RUNNERS DON'T USE DOPING.

...

Marta Dominguez, and Alemayehu Bezabeh, and Alberto Garcia and the current European runners are not part of this category. For this type of talent, blood doping can work. But, when I say that, if you want to find somebody drugged, you need to search out of top 10, is exactly what I think. Because I know what is possible to do having the real talent, and the most part of people never could see somebody with these kind of attitude.

Why wouldn't some of the "only good" runners in Kenya/Ethiopia attempt to become "top" runners using doping methods? Or more to the point, why wouldn't there be coaches in Kenya/Ethiopia attempting to create "top" runners using doping methods? It appears that this was being done with Bezabeh in Spain. If I were in your position I would be very suspicious of other "top" runners and their coaches, INCLUDING those that live and operate in Kenya and Ethiopia.

so lets summerize:

Recent fast performances by Spanish were due to doping.

Recent fast performances by Italians were due to doping.

Recent fast performances by Russians were due to doping.

Recent fast performances by Moroccans were due to doping.

Recent fast performances by Americans were due to the genius of Salazar and Schumauker, being free from injury, the internet, etc.

No just better at finding talent by having sports integrated in school in a completely different way from Europe.

I didn't know America started integrating sports and school just in 2009, when all the times started dropping.

I have no doubt you are an expert fan, by watching so many performances for so long, and I admire your passion for running sports, the way others get passionate about more popular sports like football. If the contest were knowledge and manipulation of elite performance statistics, then you certainly are some kind of occupational expert.

But watching a sport from the stands, or on TV, is far less than bringing competitive athletes to the start line. I'm sure that even if you would accept the less well paid position of coaching, that you simply lack the qualifications.

I know enough about science to know that anecdotes are not proof. Anecdotes can be suggestive, but not conclusive. Would you ever hear about athletes who took EPO, and didn't improve? The limited sample of anecdotes is surely biased. Can you rule out placebo effects? There is a reason they do "double-blind" studies, to factor out this kind of bias.

We know that different people respond differently to the same training stimulus. We don't know how many, or what kind of, athletes are simply poor responders, as the spotlight is always on the ones who win, and get caught.

you seriously think that going on a coupla weeks coaching course & getting a certificate is some sort of outstanding achievement ??

already me & probably a few hundred readers here have vastly more science knowledge on biological science than any coach

tell me how many coaches here read snell, guyton & stryer each 3 times in 1y ( & that's not fun ) ???

the rest is following/modifying training schedules outlined in many books & man management skills ( the only part requiring some "talent" ) - the former requires little intellectual rigour

there are degrees of conclusiveness from anecdotal studies & that beneficial effect of epo is certainly >>50% of athletes taking it

yes

they coud still get caught

find me an epo +ve who didn't have an improvement

you are deluded if you think there will ever be doule-blinds for such

the anecdotal evidence is huge

you seem to have some flawed belief that anecdotal evidence is all of insubstantial nature

anecdotal evidence for epo is hugely in favour of benefit

find one reputable sports scientist who thinks epo is same level of benefit as a placebo

no

find an epo +ve who didn't improve & then your assertion has some sliver of merit

if a 3'35 guy came to me asking for epo ( which of course i woudn't prescribe, as it's illegal ) i'd tell him

"try 150mcg aranesp subcut once weekly for upto 8 weeks max & get Hbs every make sure you don't go over about 18 - reduce dose if you do otherwise your likely to have a stroke

off course, each jab is going to cost you minimum $400/shot, but i'd expect you to improve your 1500 by about 4s - 3s if your unlucky & maybe 5 or 6s if you are a top responder

it's your choice..."

you can adjust that for other events by proportioning aerobic component relative to 1500m in table 1 here :

800m - expect ~ 1.5s improvement for a 1'45/1'46 guy

10k - expect 40 - 45s improvement for mid/high 27 guy

5k isn't listed there in table, but it's going to be ~ 65 - 70%, so look for 16 - 17s improvement in a 13'20 guy

use a little bit of lateral thinking & you can quantify benefits

Ha, Ha.

Ventolin^3 is really actually arguing that watching races on TV makes him an expert. I'm sure I watch a lot more football than Bill Belichick. After all I have Sunday Ticket and he is on the sidelines when the games are on.

My point was that for you, in spite of your long standing relationship with your satellite TV, combined with any math and science knowledge you may have, there are better reasons than money, why you can't be a coach -- not the least of which is the way you talk to people whom you don't agree with, and your general lack of respect.

The achievement in coaching, is bringing athletes up to their potential. The goal is not to get a piece of paper, or becoming a biology or science professor. Knowledge of science is of secondary importance, when the primary goal is training/coaching.

If all you need is anecdotal evidence, you can prove everything. I said it is suggestive, not conclusive. You draw conclusions with some risk. The trap is that anecdotes tell a story, but don't tell the whole story.

Since there will never be "double-blinds", our ability to conclude anything is limited. We are limited to less accurate anecdotes of tests mostly conducted in secret, in a most unscientific way.

Your Table 1 in the link looks like it contains old data, under-estimating the aerobic contribution. For example, the table says that 1500m is 50% aerobic. I've seen "old" figures that says it is 65% aerobic, and new figures that say 83% (+/- 3%) aerobic.

Does lateral thinking mean making up numbers? If a 3'35 guy gets 3-4 (or 5-6) seconds from an EPO program, maybe the 3'29 guy gets 1 second, and the 3'26 guy gets 0.2 seconds. Second tier athletes need PEDs much more than top athletes.

I tend to agree with ventolin^3 about some facts but i think that Renato is right indeed that with his style he can be adviser of Silvio Berlusconi or Merkle or Jose Manuel Barroso.

But about distance running....

Some data you miss it. Mouhamed Mourith was in good shape before his 2nd cross country win.

On 11 of Mars 2001 Mourith did compete in the world INDOOR champs in 3000m in Lisbon just 14 days (2 weeks) before March 19, 2001. Mourith was second and El Guerrouj that did train for that one very hard during the winter season narrowly could win over Mourith. See the runners that Mourith did win: Alberto Garcia (another one with drugs), John Mayock, Million Wolde, BERNARD LAGAT, Mark Carroll, CRAIG MOTTRAM, Paul Bitok among others.

It was hard that El Guerrouj win. He needed to run 2:25 in the last kilo with such a narrow indoor track and the last 400m (2 laps) were done in 54seconds.

2 weeks later Mourith did win the World cross country in a easy win.

Portugal, Lisbon, mars 11, 2001, World Indoor Champ

http://www2.iaaf.org/wic01/results/data/M/3000/Rf.html

3000m final

1 El Guerrouj Hicham MAR 7:37.74

2 Mourhit Mohammed BEL 7:38.94 (NR)

3 García Alberto ESP 7:39.96 (PB)

4 Mayock John GBR 7:44.08

5 Wolde Million ETH 7:44.54

6 Lagat Bernard KEN 7:45.52

7 Carroll Mark IRL 7:46.79

8 Mottram Craig AUS 7:48.34 (AR)

9 Khaldi Mohamed ALG 7:52.76

10 Bitok Paul KEN 7:54.16

11 Tahri Bouabdallah FRA 7:57.84

12 Jiménez Antonio ESP 8:04.01

13 Berioui Saïd MAR 8:04.38

Belgium, Oostende, March 25, 2001 World Cross Country Champ

http://www2.iaaf.org/wxc01/results/data/M/XS/Rf.html

Long run

1 Mourhit Mohammed BEL 39:53

2 Lebid Sergiy UKR 40:03

3 Kamathi Charles KEN 40:05

4 Guerra Paulo POR 40:06

5 Kosgei Paul KEN 40:09

6 El Himer Driss FRA 40:13

7 Patrick KEN 40:16

8 Ornelas Hélder POR 40:33

9 Gómez Alejandro ESP 40:37

10 Štefko Róbert SVK 40:41

WHAT THE DRUG CAN DO IN 2 WEEKS.

MOURITH COULD WIN OVER THE WORLD´S BEST.

But our friend Renato says that the drug doesn’t the effect as some of us we think.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Ha, Ha.

Ventolin^3 is really actually arguing that watching races on TV makes him an expert. I'm sure I watch a lot more football than Bill Belichick. After all I have Sunday Ticket and he is on the sidelines when the games are on.

no

idiot

watching lot more quality races than most any one here

there are many guys here who have probably seen every play off game in nfl in past 20y

how many have seen virtually every single golden league/diamond league meet here since inception in '90s ?

you can add most of top quality euro meets prior to golden league as well back to '80s on satellite & before then whatever was on terrestial tv back in '70s

it's a different ballpark of viewing...

J.O. wrote:

I think that blood doping or EPO are red herrings. Psychosomatic effects only.

I agree with this 100 percent and have been saying the same thing for years.

There is no REASON for such things to work, in fact they hare harmful to health.

Look in an hospital and anyone can see the people are much worse off than the average population, which is due to the medications and bad treatment.

Also look to WHO BENEFITS from the use of the medications in sporting events, surprise surprise, it is the same corporations that produce the medications, the same ones with their bogus drug ads on TV 24/7, the same drugs that don't work and that make people sick.

trollism wrote:

J.O. wrote:

I think that blood doping or EPO are red herrings. Psychosomatic effects only.

I don't agree with Renato on this issue, sometimes he talks as much bullshit as less knowledgeable people do.

Any runner in good health can be the best if he does the right training.

I presume you've never really watched any pro-cycling then?

I know more about pro cycling than you will ever know.