THREE KENYANS BANNED FOR DOPING

oar puller wrote:

Well - I gotta admit this reminds me a bit of the 2012 olympics in the actually most competitive aerobic dominant flat events.

1500 - no kenyan medals, not really close.

5000 - a single bronze, one guy doesn't even make final

10000- no medals, only one guy even with the lead pack when the real racing starts

marathon - hugely favored 'super team' produces silver and bronze, 4min+ off of what people projected they could run.

I think this is about where they SHOULD be minus doping. They are one of the strongest countries in running - but not nearly as dominant as the rampantly unregulated cheating they do would suggest.

Put another way:

Men 800m:

1. East African

2. Southern African

3. East African

Men 1500m

1. North African

2. Mestizo American

3. North African

Men 5000m

1. East African

2. East African

3. East African

Men 10000m

1. East African

2. European American

3. East African

Men 3000m Steeplechase

1. East African

2. North African-European

3. East African

Men Marathon

1. East African

2. East African

3. East African

Women 800m

1. European

2. South African

3. European

Women 1500m

1. East African

2. East African

3. European American

Women 5000m

1. East African

2. East African

3. East African

Women 10000m

1. East African

2. East African

3. East African

Women 3000m Steeplechase

1. European

2. North African

3. East African

Women Marathon

1. East African

2. East African

3. European

Athletes born in and of East African descent won 23 of 36 possible medals. I'm not counting the Turks or Tomashova in the Women's 1500.

You realize I am talking about KENYA - not making an entire race as a monolith.

Kenya had DOMINANT times in all these distances before the OG. The fact that some Ethiopians ran well has nothing to do with that.

Try to keep up please.

I don't know if you saw chaotic the Kenyan team was before the Olympics. I really don't know how much the conflict between athletic officials and athletes affected the overall outcome. First, they started moving things around and making Kenyans do their 10k trials in Oregon (but they would rather have done in at home) and tried to get them to Bristol several weeks before Olympics, yet athletes wanted to train in Kenya till a couple of days before the beginning of the games. Also there was a 400m guy who flew on his own to UK only to be told that he is not on the team and was asked to return home. There was also the issue of Vivian Cheruiyot's family, where officials had refused to aknowledge her husband, and he was almost sent back to Kenya. Another issue came with athletic officials keeping Nike shoes and attire for themselves and their families instead of distributing to the athletes. This made the athletes go to the media and it was all over the news and Nike was not happy. There was also the issue of having an incredibly deep field of marathoners to select from but instead used a rule that saw the next to top tier for that year selected. I think Ethiopia too had a similar situation in selecting their marathon team. Anyway, a guy from Uganda that trains in Kenya won. I would be actually amazed if Athletics Kenya as disorganized and incompetent as they are would have been able to sustain a systematic dopping program for 20 years.

if there is doping, it is probably administered by foreign

doctors and agents.

yyy wrote:

if there is doping, it is probably administered by foreign

doctors and agents.

Yeah nobody disputes this.

Obviously AK is too incompetent to control the doping - but they are just perfect to either ignore it or let it happen under their nose.

If you don't think kenyans will lie/cheat/steal as much as they possibly can get away with... you haven't been to kenya.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Doesnt_Take_a_Genius wrote:

That argument does not hold water. Money has been there in the Marathon for 30 years. With inflation, it was probably more money than is available now. Track racing had the same structure it does now also.

Bullshit.

What did you get for winning the Boston Marathon thirty years ago?

Thirty years ago where was:...

Dunno how accurate this is:

rekrunner wrote:

If you want to contradict Renato's idea of "blood doping not helping top athletes", you need to find out first, within this exclusive category of "top athletes":

- how much can a top athlete achieve with training alone

- how much can a top athlete achieve with training and "blood doping"]

Curious, are there any studies out there on this? And if not, then I think you could get your answer if someone actually DID this study.

I have to admit this thread is very fascinating. You make a lot of good points and ask very intriguing questions. I will have to go back to some posts that I wanted to ask and yet I still need to read the rest of the thread.

Curious, are the three different Hct levels different weeks or were they taken at different times @ sea level b/c they are anemic standards for a healthy person? Also, I would think EPO or blood transfusion or going back to altitude would help raise the levels, no? Or what about when someone trains @ altitude and they are supposed to take iron supplements? To help w/fatigue or levels of iron which therefore helps boost Hct levels as well?Please excuse me for the questions/ignorance that I have but I can't help my medical background inquiries. Good discussion btw...

Thanks. Inflation adjusted 84,85,86 Chicago prizes are on par with anything but the very top few today. MANY marathons started prize money in the 80s after the "amateur" sham went away. Money in the marathon is not the magic explanation for the explosion of fast times in the past 10 years.

Moronic wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Bullshit.

What did you get for winning the Boston Marathon thirty years ago?

Thirty years ago where was:...

Dunno how accurate this is:

http://www.arrs.net/PM_DistR.htm

It isn't JUST money in the marathon, it's a combination of more money in the marathon AND less money on the track. Look at what's happening to the 10k: year after year there are fewer major races, and even if you do find a good race, odds are you're not making much money out of it. So what's an East African runner going to do if he can run, say, 27:15? He's not fast enough to do much in the 5k, he doesn't have many opportunities in the 10k (and he wouldn't necessarily win much there either), and sponsors aren't going to be throwing a lot of money at him. Meanwhile, on any given Sunday he's got a real shot at taking home 6 figures from a marathon, plus a guaranteed appearance fee just for finishing.

OK, but how much prize money is a no name, first timer who finishes 6th taking home? Probably not getting any appearance fee. Maybe that $2k is significant for a Kenyan on the farm. But is it significant enough to hammer workouts for years on the hope that one day it might pay off, but chances are against it? Vs the track where there used to be 8 big money 10Ks and now there are 5? And again, track money has never been as large as the marathon or very deep into the field. There have been hundreds of marathons a year since the 80s with 1000s in prize money. So the opportunity has been there for 30 years. Why now?Just like the explosion of tremendously fast track times in the 90s that just happened to coincide with the introduction and lack of a test for EPO, the marathon will likely prove the same with a different drug (or maybe the same) as soon as testing methods are similar to IAAF track athlete testing. Think about it. Train in obscurity with no testing oversight, no race experience, and show up in the Big City for your first trip off the farm and bust a 2:05 the first time ever running on pavement? Possible? Yes. Probable? NO. Yet it is happening every other weekend now. Probability says something is fishy here. Add to that: these guys are mostly coached by foreign coaches from countries with a history of cycling doping (possible knowledge & moral flexibility) who make a percentage of earnings. A famous one of them posted blood data for an athlete here. If you don't believe that blood chemistry manipulation matters, why do you have blood data? Science is seldom hard facts. It is data and correlations. The data here points so an unnatural number of extremely fast marathon times. The reason something unnatural happens is usually... something unnatural.

Ho Hum wrote:

It isn't JUST money in the marathon, it's a combination of more money in the marathon AND less money on the track. Look at what's happening to the 10k: year after year there are fewer major races, and even if you do find a good race, odds are you're not making much money out of it. So what's an East African runner going to do if he can run, say, 27:15? He's not fast enough to do much in the 5k, he doesn't have many opportunities in the 10k (and he wouldn't necessarily win much there either), and sponsors aren't going to be throwing a lot of money at him. Meanwhile, on any given Sunday he's got a real shot at taking home 6 figures from a marathon, plus a guaranteed appearance fee just for finishing.

I am not sure I understand (c) . How does EPO not help a top athlete?

How could it help Contador, Armstrong, Schleck, Pantani, etc. a 2:07 kenyan but not a 2:05 kenyan?

different genetics obviously.

I said before the original table is ordered in columns and rows.

Since the data here are written as text only, I explain what they mean :

1. The 3 blood tests were on different dates : 16th March (when the shape was not very good, about 8'35" in steeple since he ran 8'32" 3 weeks later in Army Championships), 8th July (he was already in St. Moritz and ran several times between 8'06" and 8'10"), and 2nd August (2 weeks before winning WCh, I think his shape was very close 8').

2. These tests were done after some days Christopher was at sea level from altitude. The days of staying at sea level were respectively 12,9 and 4.

3. If you want better understanding the value, put in column all the first data, referred to the test on 16.03, all the second data (test on 8.07) and all the third data (referred to the test on 2.08).

Christopher never took anything, also legal : no vitamins, no any support such as energetic drinks, nothing else out of normal food (and milk as drinks).

This means the variations are directly connected with his training only, since there were no influence of any type coming from other sources.

About the other poster asking "why we do blood tests if there is no the idea to give doping", I have a very simple answer : you don't understand absolutely anything about what a coach has to do in order to control the health of top athletes training every day at max intensity, who have to pick for an important competition. We need to know from their blood values if everything is ok in their body, since it's possible to have prevention of sicknesses or overtraining knowing the trend of their values.

For example, controlling the level of Ferritin we can see how much Iron athletes can have in their store. If the level is very low, also if the current shape of the athlete is very good, we know he's going to reduce his performances in 2 weeks time, because of the lack of iron in his body due to the very hard training. In this case, the solution is to reduce every lactic training and the intensity, giving more room to easy aerobic training in order to reduce the request of O2 we have for recovering high intensity.

But of course, when we speak with some amateur thinking he can train alone, he can know everything because he's a reader of some running magazine, and he thinks everything is more scientific is propedeutic for doping, we find people without any knowledge and with their mind closed in a jail where it's not possible to have any correct vision from.

I want to ask you something probably you never thought about.

When we have 2 different athletes, showing the same biomechanical efficiency, having about the same morphology, WHICH IS THE POINT MAKING THEM DIFFERENT IN THEIR PERFORMANCE (for example, 2:05 vs 2:07) ?

How many times we see some athlete running in amazing technical way, we think he can become a champion, and after we discover he never can reach the top level, because he lacks something important (that, believe me, is not the motivation or the will to fatigue or the ability in suffering : many athletes of medium level can have these qualities at the same level of top runners) ?

So, which is the characteristic making the difference ?

The characteristic is something we can't see, because is inside their body, and depends on their specific physiology. If physiological principles are the same for everybody, the levels of physiological attitudes are not the same.

One of these characteristics is THE ELASTICITY OF THEIR TISSUES. When se explain that, with 3-4 months of correct and hard aerobic training of high specific intensity, some athletes can increase their total volume of blood of 25% (it means to have 1 and half liter of blood more than before in their body), the problem is if the circulatory system is so elastic to be able to accept this extra-volume, or, as in the most part of cases, doesn't have the possibility to house any increase in the total blood volume.

This means that, if all the parameters of the 2 athletes are the same, but there is this difference, THAT'S THE REASON BECAUSE ONE RUNS 2:05 and the other 2:07.

EPO can work with the athletes of second group : all athletes with not high elasticity in their tissues, and specifically with a circulatory system that is more "blocked" for the personal genetic composition.

Many think EPO can help more long distances. I already explained several times that, when we have a competition of long duration, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO HAVE LOW VISCOSITY IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE PERIFERAL RESISTANCES AT THE BLOOD CIRCULATION. Since with EPO we can enhance the POWER of the engine, but for Marathon we use a percentage of that power, IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO ENHANCE THE PERCENTAGE OF AEROBIC POWER WE CAN USE, THAN TO ENHANCE THE AEROBIC POWER ITSELF. Our goal is to reduce the consumption of glycogen at the specific speed (far from the possibilities of the athlete) in order to last longer at Marathon Pace, NOT TO ENHANCE THE POWER OF THE ENGINE WITH THE EFFECT TO USE MORE GLYCOGEN AND TO FINISH THE FUEL BEFORE THE END OF THE RACE.

For that reason, EPO doesn't help marathon runners. This fact doesn't mean all marathon runners are clean. Of course, some of them believes in doping, and tries to have advantages taking EPO. But the real advantage they can have is only connected with one factor : TAKING EPO, THEY FINALLY THINK POSSIBLE TO INCREASE THE VOLUME AND THE QUALITY OF THEIR TRAINING, AND THAT THE REASON BECAUSE AT THE END THEY CAN IMPROVE.

In cycling, EPO was only a little part of doping. EPO could be considered the "base of support" for the REAL doping, that is specifically for increasing both muscle strength and recovery. If you want to move from 20 km of speed to 22 on a mountain, you need to be able to use one tooth more in the gear of the bike, and THIS MEANS STRENGTH. The fact of lasting long time using this level of strength is more connected with the ability in transporting Oxygen, and this can be connected with EPO. But, listening the specialists of cycling, EPO IS IMPORTANT ESSENTIALLY FOR RECOVERING AFTER VERY HARD EFFORTS, so particularly in the competitions with several stages (Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, Vuelta de Espana). Also coaches and doctors connected witrh cycling say this is not important in races of one day.

So, in athletics there are competitions with many stages ? And, about recovering hard workouts, are we sure that training hard almost every day can produce better results than training at very high specific intensity may be once every 4-5 days, waiting your bpody can recover NATURALLY the previous hard training, without helping this recovery with any external support ?

So, I think everybody has to start to meditate about what I write, instead insulting basing everything in some research with completely different subject. And, please, don't put in the same pott every sport based on endurance : cycling, running middle distances, running long distances, cross skiing and swimming are different sports, and their requests are completely different.

all your arguments apply to cycling as well and there we know doping was rampant. You have a very bad case.

fact is that a 2:05 guy was caught. period.

The Olympics is a special case. Kenyans have historically underperformed in the Olympics for various reasons:- Each country can only chose 3 athletes. This disadvantages Kenya.- Conducting trials on short notice, when athletes are not available (e.g. commitments to a spring marathon)- Conducting trials too close to the Olympics, forcing them to peak for the trials, then again for the Olympics- Forcing athletes to leave their coach, in the final weeks before the Olympics, to go to national training camps under a national coach.Despite a long history of Kenyan dominance in the marathon, Wanjiru is the only gold medal winner, and they only have a total of six medals: one gold, three silver, and two bronze.

oar puller wrote:

Well - I gotta admit this reminds me a bit of the 2012 olympics in the actually most competitive aerobic dominant flat events.

First, we don't know how much EPO helped Contador, Armstrong, Schleck, Pantani, etc. (Actually we don't even know Contador and Schleck took EPO). This is because cyclists did not just do EPO and blood doping. They also took steroids, testosterone, cortisone, and HGH -- cocktails that provide both strength, and speed up recovery.Second, 3-week grand cycling tours are simply not the same as a 1 day running event like the marathon. With multi-day cycling, recovery for the next day, and through the third week, become huge factors not present in a single day event like a 2-hour marathon.

Samiamamam wrote:

I am not sure I understand (c) . How does EPO not help a top athlete?

How could it help Contador, Armstrong, Schleck, Pantani, etc. a 2:07 kenyan but not a 2:05 kenyan?

Well, EPO helped Amstrong tremendously as he couldn't even FINISH the tour before EPO.

Also, if you think Contador and Schleck weren't on EPO you are incredibly, and I mean incredibly, naive. You don't finish in the top 10 in the TDF without EPO. This isn't opinion, this is universally accepted truth in the cycling world.