Canova was right! EPO does not work on trained athletes

So, you're back on this subject to criticize & rationalize...who could have imagined. "Breakthrough analysis?" A simple time line of his spikes and significant improvements with a confirmed rHuEPO user, a user during the prevelant EPO-era, pre-ABP; where one could push Hct levels to infinity & beyond 😉.

"Cherry pick a few numbers" with a confirmed doper?...that's a new one 😄. Btw, go back and look at the numbers that I pulled from his IAAF site (more than a few...Lol).

The problem with your stance on Mourhit, and other confirmed doping cases that I've presented, is you simply reject the anecdotal evidence of significantly improved times that I suggest is the consequence of 02-vector doping - based on your thesis that this type of doping has little or no effect on elite athletes (and yet there are no studies with elite athletes)...simple as that.

Yeah...right, and this isn't first time you've been in your pretentious "criticism" mode. To sum this up, you come into these debates with your esoteric attitude of doping, rejecting anecdotes, and the idea that O2-vector doping can result in a significant improvement in performance with high-responders...who would have thought.

Real World Analysis wrote:

Aragon wrote:

This isn't the first instance when his "time series" aren't too convincing to put it mildly. And this notion about RWA's modus operandi or about his state of mind is fully independent whether one thinks that I am a "pro-doper", "Lance fanboy", "Russian whitewasher" or a total idiot or all the aforementioned.

Yeah...right, and this isn't first time you've been in your pretentious "criticism" mode. To sum this up, you come into these debates with your esoteric attitude of doping, rejecting anecdotes, and the idea that O2-vector doping can result in a significant improvement in performance with high-responders...who would have thought.

+1

Aragon is obviously pro doping and a Lance fanboi (he still trusts him!) - or just trolling us.

kh wrote:

You realize those two don't even have the KOM record on Ventoux, right?

Yes, but other dopers do: Iban Mayo holds the all-time fastest and Tyler Hamilton is second (didn't Hamilton learn his doping from Armstrong? Lol). Pantani holds the 6th spot, and LA has the 10th & 11th. In fact, 1st thru 6th are confirmed high-octane dopers...imagine that.

The cherry-picking criticism is 100 % valid about the case of Mourhit and about years 98-00, you can look at his "spikes" of those years and still the guy was only some 22 seconds short of the half marathon WR in 1997.In any case, my key criticism wasn't even wrong information as such, but being aware that material is disputed elsewhere and presenting it as a new and relevant finding.And you are plain wrong that there are no studies with elite athletes, as there is and I brought this up some time ago in relation to the Dutch analysis on the rEPO-literature:

The problem is that even the existing material points to the direction that better trained athletes are significantly lower responsive to O2 vector doping, which is obvious by going through the existing data on individual participants (a pattern clearly visible in the first rEPO study of 1989 for example).

Perhaps I'll delve into the subject in more detail in the future, but currently I'll focus in wrapping up my trilogy about the whistle blowers (Mikko Ala-Leppilampi, Kaarlo Maaninka etc.) of the Finnish blood doping program of 1970s and 1980s, a project that is approaching 10000 words and of which over half is published already in my blog.

(It is in Finnish language, so I won't even bother to link it here, but in case that any one is interested, google in quotation marks "Mikko Ala-Leppilampi" and "Pekka Peltokallio" and the blog should be one of the first hits and it is almost readable through Google translate).

I absolutely don't think Aragon is pro-doping : what I see, is one person using the brain instead the belly, how the most part of LR posters.

For example, about Mourhit. Nobody denies he was doped, getting EPO in 1999 and 2000. In 1997, maybe he was already doped, or not, this is not the problem. The problem is that what blocked his progression for some year, was the fact he had one leg shorter of the other of more than 2 cm, and never could train with continuity before solving the problem (this happened in 1999 when he found near Bruxelles a specialist who was able to make a shoe externally 2 cm higher, with the same flexibility of a normal shoe). I know this fact because at that time I had one athlete, Mark Bett, running 12'55" in 5000m, who never was able to train longer than 3 months with continuity, having a leg 3 cm longer than the other, and this provoked big problems in the column, and sciatic pain.

I went to this orthopedic under indication of Mourhit himself, and Mark could train with more continuity, becoming able to run 10000m in 26'52".

One common mistake here is to think that every performance, good or bad, must depend on the type of training only, or on doping, as if athletes were not persons, with the normal problems of any human being (health, family, money, etc...).

About doping, there is a widespread idea to connect it with the level of every performance, without considering other factors :

1) If an athlete wants to dope, he needs to use something having influence on the qualities required by his kind of sport. Also an idiot understands that the quality needed for being competitive in 7 hours of bike, in 2 hours of marathon and in 1'40" for 800m are not the same, BUT DOPING IN MANY CASES IS THE SAME. So, can we suppose it can have the same effect on the performances ?

2) A scientific doping is something very rare, since needs to have a lot of components for controlling the effects, and this costs a lot of money. For that reason, it's clear that the sports with more money (soccer, basket, football, tennis) can have at disposal more resources for a "scientific approach" to doping, while runners can do everything by themselves, many times ignoring completely the real effects of the substances.

3) This is, for example, the case of doped athletes from the Countries of the old Soviet Union. About 30 years ago, in those Countries doping was part of training, the coaches themselves gave illegal tablets or made injections to the athletes, and the federal organization had the task to control the effects for avoiding the possibility they were positive at the controls in competition.

Now, may coaches continue with the same protocol, without understanding the level of antidoping is more precise, the illegal substances are more than before, and the old way of doping is no more possible.

4) But the real big problem is the mentality of the most part of athletes, that is connected with the mentality of the most part of people. Remember that the Pharma Industry is the 3rd business in the world, and that the message we receive a lot of times every day (TV, newspapers, movies) is that what we eat or drink is not enough for having a healthy life, and the level of energy we need. This message, which pushes normal people to drink, for example, "energetic drinks" also when are seated behind a table, of course induces the sport actors to look at every opportunity for increasing their qualities. And there is the wrong idea that, if a medicine like EPO can increase the transportation of Oxygen of 30% in people having kidney problems (the medicine was created for people needing the dialysis), the same can happen with a person without any problem. And, further wrong idea, is that, for a top athlete, there is the same advantage the person without any problem can have.

5) In all this situation, I continue to ask one question, but it seems that nobody has the will to answer : WHICH IS THE ROLE OF TRAINING IN CHANGING THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY ? TILL WHERE THIS CHANGE CAN ARRIVE ? THERE IS A LEVEL OF TRAINING WHERE DOPING HAS NO ANY EFFECT ?

6) We already know that, till now, the best possible training for developing muscle strength can't reach the same effects of the steroids of old generation. It's not a case that there are no new WR after 1988 in all the throwing events, and in the events where the strength has the most important role in the women events (sprint, 800m, jumps). But is a fact that, in the endurance events, WR continue to fall. Many people give credit, for this fact, to doping, but as methodology the kind of training in the last 30 years changed a lot in one direction : THE VOLUME OF THE INTENSITY.

There is some research trying to explain the role of this new methodological approach, in changing physiological parameters ?

The answer is : NO. Nobody went to study, in systematic way, the effects of training at higher level, with the best athletes, in particular conditions (born, living and training in altitude).

Therefore, instead to continue with the old explanations - that don't explain anything, try to think at this factor, together with another factor : THE RESPONSE OF THE BODY TO ANY KIND OF STIMULUS IS STRICTLY INDIVIDUAL, and this is true in case of a medicine, like in case of a sickness (otherwise, why to ask for a consultation of different top doctors when there is a sickness, if the response is the same for everybody ?).

Many things to think, using the brain.

Nothing to learn, using the belly.

Of course you're going to say that; you both share the same views on 02-vector doping, it's called conflating...who would have thought.

Yes...you discussed this in great detail in the Sumgong doping thread that Aragon posted the link to on the his above post. But that doesn't preclude that he didn't receive performance benefits from rHuEPO. Do you know when he initiated doping? EPO became available in the early 90s and was widespread by the mid-90s. Mourhit also had a ~5% improvement in his 5k time from 96 - 97. There was no test for rHuEPO until the "ON" model debut in the Sydney Olympics (and Mourhit didn't test positive until 2002 anyway), so up to that time, athletes could dope with impunity...who could have imagined.

You also explained in that same thread how Ramzi; "had two years without any motivation and with very little training, before the offer to change citizenship becoming Bahraini." So, I get the picture with both Mourhit & Ramzi, one corrected his leg length discrepancy and the other became more motivated to train. So, therefore, dope had nothing to do with their performances during their careers....I guess nothing to see there? And Sumgong? She probably could have accomplished her achievements clean with better training and a stronger mind?

And while we're on the subject of athletes popped for dope, who could have easily obtained their success without something as nefarious as resorting to PEDs, even the infamous Dr. Ferrari has something to say:

Now Lance is got to be the dumbest athlete in the world for paying Ferrari a million bucks for a PED program when he could have accomplished all of those achievements clean. 😁

he seems to to think that the two are mutually exclusive. Flawed logic at a very basic level.

I was in Kona.Nothing has changed much since last year, except that this study is now published. We already knew the important conclusions. If you want to know my opinion, just re-read this thread.One interesting thing I will point out -- some of the scientific critics of the study mention two things:- The study focuses on the lack of performance improvement in sub-maximal efforts, while ignoring the more important maximal efforts thought to provide the real benefit of EPO.- The "time trial" was only a one-day effort, and not the three week effort of the grand tours, therefore not benefiting from the improved recovery from hard efforts for the following days.These critics are suggesting that EPO is effective at maximal efforts, as well as providing improved recovery, or protective, benefits for multiple day efforts, and that we should not expect any noteworthy gains for sub-maximal efforts that do not span multiple days.I've frequently used these same arguments to show why we should not expect any EPO caused improvements in sub-maximal events like the marathon, which unlike cycling, do not contain short bouts of maximal efforts within portions of the race.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Back to this EPO cycling study, the concerning thing is that the (erroneous) conclusions that EPO doesn't work has already gone viral around the world. Radio/tv hosts all over the place are saying on their shows, I heard this while sitting in traffic this morning, "Oh, you know that eeepeeoh drug that Lance Armstrong took, apparently it doesn't work, he was just wasting his time and all those Tour de France cyclists, no benefit." The damage has been done.

Anyway, where is rekrunner?

Real World Analysis wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Anyway, where is rekrunner?

If it's the same "rekrunner," I saw him posting on some nonsensical, stupid threats 😁

You mean like EPO threads? No. I haven't posted recently.

cheaters out wrote:

Using other troll handles now, because he couldn't remain true to his "everyone-is-clean-and-everything-is-coincidental" rekrunner character without laughing out loud.

No. I didn't post under any handle.

rekrunner wrote:

These critics are suggesting that EPO is effective at maximal efforts, as well as providing improved recovery, or protective, benefits for multiple day efforts, and that we should not expect any noteworthy gains for sub-maximal efforts that do not span multiple days.

I've frequently used these same arguments to show why we should not expect any EPO caused improvements in sub-maximal events like the marathon, which unlike cycling, do not contain short bouts of maximal efforts within portions of the race.

I think you've missed one of the most important shortcomings of the study – that the riders in the EPO group were not allowed to alter their training routine.

Since EPO allows faster recovery from training, the intensity of the training can be ramped-up over time to enhance not only the base sub-maximal effort, but also to further increase maximal effort. This effect takes time and is unlikely to manifest itself in a short-term study.

For TdF cyclists, EPO works not only for the short bursts of maximal effort, but also for recovery between stages. You cannot simulate that effect with a one-day ride up the mountain.

As far as your marathon comparison goes, while the EPO-enhanced recovery is not a factor in a short event like the marathon, it is a huge factor in the multi-week training effort leading up to the marathon. This type of training is more comparable to a multi-week cycling event and will produce similar results.

The Dutch have been trying for years to discount the effects of EPO. I don't know why they are so intent on doing that, perhaps they are still trying to overcome the negative image Dutch sports acquired from the EPO deaths of all those young Dutch cyclists in the late 80’s.

The problem is that they are resorting to junk science to do it, which is likely to backfire and be counterproductive in the long term. From the study authors’ press statements, it seems that the message is aimed at dissuading mid-level “club” athletes from taking EPO, rather than the elites. Problem is, it is exactly with mid-level athletes where EPO has the more significant observable effects. People who do try it will experience improvements, ensuring EPO’s continuing popularity.

This “EPO doesn’t work” message may even be more damaging to sports since any moral misgivings one might have can now be more conveniently dismissed. “Hey, they say it doesn’t really work, so why shouldn’t I at least try it? It’s not against the spirit of competition so who am I hurting?”

And, of course, the elites will continue to get busted for EPO use, further reinforcing that counter-message.

Real World Analysis wrote:

Lance is got to be the dumbest athlete in the world for paying Ferrari a million bucks for a PED program when he could have accomplished all of those achievements clean. 😁

Two very brief points:

1) Perhaps you could clarify where I have claimed that Lance Armstrong gained no performance enhancement via his PED use? Or is this another typical straw man argument from your part?

2) While other people (Chris Carmichael) had some part in Armstrong's training, it is pretty much conclusively proven that Michele Ferrari was Armstrong's main coach who did his physiological testing and tailored his training program. The collaboration as well as Ferrari's expertise go well beyond "a PED program" and the Italian had expertise in training cyclists going to early 1980s.

Yes, Armstrong doped and Ferrari provided him with substances and know-how on how not to test positive (T/rEPO-microdosing, blood extraction), but one orange juice comment in the past doesn't mean that Ferrari's key expertise was in this field even if he honestly believed that going to the dark side was a prerequisite to succeed.

Even when the Mont Ventoux - study sparked very little debate when the news broke a few months ago, The Lancet has now published six letters where the conduct of the study has been criticized on various grounds such as uncontrolled conditions during the Ventoux time trial, questionable Vo2MAX testing protocol, whether the results can be extrapolated to elites and that fifteen-year-old epic climbing records from the presumed rEPO era remain unbroken.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-3026

(17)30105-9/fulltext

(copy-paste that if the link doesn't work or google "erythropoietin on cycling performance" and the page should be almost the first one)

The letters are easily readable, short, informative and quite interesting particularly when authors include well-known physiologists such as Michael Joyner, Carsten Lundby and Michael N. Sawka.

As one should expect, Jules Heuberger and his coauthors have published their response and (among other things) pointed out that many people had misunderstood their intentions, that people thought that they would've wanted to take rEPO away from the doping list, when their primary motive was to discourage its use. They can also refer to the (thus far) un-debunked Dutch research on the time improvements of rEPO vs. pre-rEPO eras where no miraculous 1990 can be seen.