pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
There is also the steroid passport. I haven't checked the status of it recently.
The steriodal module was added to the ABP in 2014. I'm heard of one athlete (Danielson/cycling) that was target tested as a result of anomalies on his ABP which resulted in a positive finding of androgenic/anabolic steriods, or their precursors.
Let me address the word training with you Renato: There is no denying that these athletes have trained hard, but the ability to recover and train even harder is where the doping comes in. If you deny that, then either you think we are naïve or you are the one being naïve.
Renato, you sound like a classic apologist.
"The cost of a test is by far very much higher than what you think. You look at the cost of the lab only, but you must add the cost of travel and accommodation for the testers, that is the main source of the expenditures for WADA and IAAF antidoping system. If the top athletes could, in theory, face the global cost of a control (for a serious test the cost is about 1000 USD), it's unfair to ask normal athletes, who don't reach 10000 USD of winning prizes in one year, to spend more than what they CAN win in order to compete."
If that is not an excuse to keep a sport dirty, then tell me what it is 'cause I ain't buying that. Call it the cost of doing business if we want a clean sport, obviously you don't want one.
Renato Canova wrote:
This is a good list of high level stupidities.
Following this idiotic parameters, we can see that some time pre-EPO in marathon (for example, Carlos Lopes 2:07:12 and Steve Jones 2:07:13) were already well under the current WR, if these athletes took EPO. Some athlete who I know for sure was completely clean, such as Nicholas Kemboi (26'30" in 10000m), with EPO had to run about 25'40". Shaheen on steeple had to run under 7'40".
Of course, if there is somebody thinking these stupidities can be true, athletics is going to finish.
I understand that Lopes and Jones ran those times pre-EPO, but not before blood doping and steroids were available so it's not possible to say if those times were fully clean or not. '85 was a great year for blood transfusions as it was only just banned that year by the IOC and there was no test for it. It was legal in sport just the year before, right? Any idea what their hematocrit was? If it was on the higher side naturally? 2:07:12 with a 25% hct increase should net a time right around 2:02:40.
As for someone like Shaheen, it's not possible to know for sure he was clean, just like a young girl's parents "know" for sure she doesn't have an eating disorder despite the fact she's throwing up in the bathroom several times a day.
Let's assume Shaheen was/is clean and went 26:30. It has to be possible, surely. I can believe that. 25:40 does sound ridiculous. I've read your explanation of why EPO doesn't work on top level altitude native athletes, and I can dismiss the few Africans that have tested positive. It's an interesting idea and I rather like the possibility of it. However, it's still very hard to understand how it can work so well for some but not for those at the very very highest level.
Do you feel Shaheen would have actually been slower if his hematocrit was around 45% instead of 40%? Assuming the increase did not come from dehydration, of course, but an actual increase in red blood cells of 12.5%.
I guess there are some difficulties inherent with the situation. Obviously if you know someone is doping and are ok with it you can't tell us. I don't think you'd come on here and lie though. Which sets up a situation where athketes could be doing things behind your back, but you trust them. Or, they are not lying to you and you aren't lying to us, we are simply so far removed from being able to run that fast that we can not fathom how it's possible so our feeble minds say it must be the dope.
I appreciate you taking so much of your time to try to progress our understanding of running.
I had periodic tests with my athletes, Italian or Kenyan. How already I wrote, after the big marathon (I'm in Boston then I'll go London) I have some time at home, where I have the data, and I can start to publish them. I don't think I have to ask the athletes some permission regarding the privacy : everybody was clean, so I don't see any reason for making secret their data.
I can give you some anticipation.
We started to investigate, as research for the University, the blood values of Kenyan athletes at sea level in 1998, when they were in Torino for training with me. At that time, we didn't have any data for Kenyans in altitude, apart the first blood test, normally carried out the first day they were at sea level (so these data can be considered their data of altitude).
The tests were carried out every 2-3 weeks. The athletes, in that period, could remain at sea level for long time (for example, Paul Kosgei bettered the WR of 25 km on road after almost 3 months in Torino), because there were frequent races and opportunities to earn good prizes with continuity.
We used to look, at the beginning, at a lot of values. I organized the values in longitudinal columns, considering a very simple factor : the shape of the athlete at the moment, and I wanted to see which values could change, with the improvement of the shape. So, the same type of value was organized in rows, and we could see the relation between values and performance.
In some case, we didn't see any relation : some of the values could be higher or lower, without any connection with the shape of the athletes.
In these cases, after about 100 tests, we cancelled the investigation for these parameters, which didn't have any influence (or were not influenced) on the shape of the athletes.
At the end, we selected a wide number of tests which seemed connected with the shape of the athletes. These values were the EFFECT, not the CAUSE, of the shape, because the only factor changing the shape was the athlete's training.
In 1999, I started to go Saint Moritz (1800m altitude) with Kenyans too, and I started to have blood tests from altitude training, and long stay in altitude.
Already I had a lot of test with the Italian runners in Sestriere, but the period of stay for them never was very long (more than 3 weeks). Sometimes, we used a repetition of periods (3 weeks up, 3 weeks at sea level, again 3 weeks up, and so and so), but never a long period with continuity.
Kenyans going Saint Moritz directly from Kenya, instead, had continuity in their stay in altitude, so their tests were related with their stay, and I started to investigate the effects of ADAPTATION, instead of the effects of REACTION. All the tests were carried out in the same lab in Torino : one time every 2-3 weeks I moved by car from Saint Moritz to Torino (about 3 hours) with the athletes I wanted to test (normally 3-4), so the results belonged to the same lab.
I could see some trend common for everybody :
a) Increasing the shape, their blood values changed, and Hb and Hct went down. This is a phenomen everybody knows, because training in altitude with high intensity of aerobic effort produces the increase of plasma, increases the total volume of blood, and the Hct goes down.
b) There was a clear range inside which the performance of every athlete was optimal. For example, for an athlete who normally had Hct between 41 and 43 when well trained, and 45-46 when not trained, when he had 43 could compete better than when he had 41. This fact makes to suppose that the fact athletes can increase their total volume of blood is connected with the fact that, over some personal physiological limit, an artificial increase of Hct goes to inhibit some other function, and at the end the final product becomes negative.
c) We saw that, inside the optimal range for every athlete, the training could produce better effects when the athletes could take folic acid for some period, in order to increase the affinity between Hb and Oxygen. In other words, looking at what I wrote above, the athlete not trained with Hct at 45, who improved his performance with Hct of 41, could run better if, taking folic acid, could go at 43 (AT THE HIGHER VALUES OF HIS PERSONAL OPTIMAL RANGE).
d) Athletes arriving with the same performances, and using the same type of training, had at the end big differences in the improvement of their performances. This means that there is some SPECIFIC TALENT connected with the individual physiological situation, that is possible to exalt with aerobic training of high intensity, while for other athletes this possibility doesn't exist. I think that in case of this SPECIFIC TALENT there is no exogenous substance that can work better than training, in the other case blood doping can give some advantage.
e) The values for athletes having similar PB were so different and various that to speak about AVERAGE is a nonsense. At the same time, is a nonsense also to suppose that high Hct can produce better results. If athletes with 39 and 53 of Hct can produce the same result, it's obvious that there are other parameters which intervene in this situation. We don't deny that a higher Hct INSIDE THE PERSONAL RANGE OF EVERY ATHLETE can produce better transportation of Oxygen, but the range is very limited, and to increase artificially the level of Hct produce a decrease of the performance. So, it's clear that Hct is connected, in opposite way, with some other parameter that becomes a limiting factor for the performance.
I have tests regarding several different situations :
1- Short-medium periods in altitude for Italian of sea level
2- Short-medium periods at sea level for Kenyans
3- Long period in altitude for Chinese of sea level
4- Normal stay in altitude for people of altitude
Many of these data were already objects of clinics and seminars, in different part of the World.
From all these data, what of sure we can say is that THERE IS NOT A COMMON WAY TO REACT TO ALTITUDE, and for the same reason THERE IS NOT A COMMON WAY TO REACT TO BLOOD DOPING.
But there is not a COMMON WAY TO REACT TO THE SAME TYPE OF TRAINING.
The principle of INDIVIDUALIZATION is at the base of every top performance, and in case of exceptional athletes there is no possibility to further increase their natural potentiality.
Renato Canova wrote:
a) Increasing the shape, their blood values changed, and Hb and Hct went down. This is a phenomen everybody knows, because training in altitude with high intensity of aerobic effort produces the increase of plasma, increases the total volume of blood, and the Hct goes down.
b) There was a clear range inside which the performance of every athlete was optimal. For example, for an athlete who normally had Hct between 41 and 43 when well trained, and 45-46 when not trained, when he had 43 could compete better than when he had 41. This fact makes to suppose that the fact athletes can increase their total volume of blood is connected with the fact that, over some personal physiological limit, an artificial increase of Hct goes to inhibit some other function, and at the end the final product becomes negative.
c) We saw that, inside the optimal range for every athlete, the training could produce better effects when the athletes could take folic acid for some period, in order to increase the affinity between Hb and Oxygen. In other words, looking at what I wrote above, the athlete not trained with Hct at 45, who improved his performance with Hct of 41, could run better if, taking folic acid, could go at 43 (AT THE HIGHER VALUES OF HIS PERSONAL OPTIMAL RANGE).
d) Athletes arriving with the same performances, and using the same type of training, had at the end big differences in the improvement of their performances. This means that there is some SPECIFIC TALENT connected with the individual physiological situation, that is possible to exalt with aerobic training of high intensity, while for other athletes this possibility doesn't exist. I think that in case of this SPECIFIC TALENT there is no exogenous substance that can work better than training, in the other case blood doping can give some advantage.
e) The values for athletes having similar PB were so different and various that to speak about AVERAGE is a nonsense. At the same time, is a nonsense also to suppose that high Hct can produce better results. If athletes with 39 and 53 of Hct can produce the same result, it's obvious that there are other parameters which intervene in this situation. We don't deny that a higher Hct INSIDE THE PERSONAL RANGE OF EVERY ATHLETE can produce better transportation of Oxygen, but the range is very limited, and to increase artificially the level of Hct produce a decrease of the performance. So, it's clear that Hct is connected, in opposite way, with some other parameter that becomes a limiting factor for the performance.
I have tests regarding several different situations :
1- Short-medium periods in altitude for Italian of sea level
2- Short-medium periods at sea level for Kenyans
3- Long period in altitude for Chinese of sea level
4- Normal stay in altitude for people of altitude
Many of these data were already objects of clinics and seminars, in different part of the World.
From all these data, what of sure we can say is that THERE IS NOT A COMMON WAY TO REACT TO ALTITUDE, and for the same reason THERE IS NOT A COMMON WAY TO REACT TO BLOOD DOPING.
But there is not a COMMON WAY TO REACT TO THE SAME TYPE OF TRAINING.
The principle of INDIVIDUALIZATION is at the base of every top performance, and in case of exceptional athletes there is no possibility to further increase their natural potentiality.
However, with time to exhaustion, which is an important variable of submaximal effort,
hematopoietic factors may NOT be a factor with rhEPO administration:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26729211Very interesting comments.
Particularly the part about folic acid supplementation.
At what point did you start with folic acid supplementation with your athletes?
Folic acid supplementation can work to potentiate EPO use. Although of course this has been studied in sick people getting EPO and I am not aware of any study in athletics. Although folic acid has been studied.
no athlete running a 26.30 10'000 meters is clean.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
My question for those interested is epo (or hormonal drugs for that matter) harder to detect in men? I still can't believe that Makhloufi wasn't busted Ramzi-style in London.
As far as I know, gender doesn't figure into the blood stats used to easily identify EPO use over time. However, it requires the IAAF to do OOC blood tests. Which they don't do with any kind of meaningful frequency.
The classic EPO masking method is the "altitude training camp." Altitude messes with the same parameters the bio-passport uses. So, take EPO at altitude for a couple of weeks. Lay off the EPO for a week before your event. You get all the EPO benefits and never test positive.
The last numbers I saw were the IAAF doing urine tests.. Urine tests for EPO are a joke. You'd have to fail an IQ test to fail an EPO urinalysis.
Much like Radcliffe or Bolt, Makhloufi seems blessed by the IAAF. Maybe it was an old-fashioned bribe that buried a positive. Who knows.
i think epo gains,with other drugs mixed in are greater than that.rashid ramzi went from 3.44 to 3.29 in the 1500,and turkeys gamze bulut went from 4.18 to 4.03.thats a huge gain.they were probably on steroids,as well as epo.
jeff tallon wrote:
i think epo gains,with other drugs mixed in are greater than that.rashid ramzi went from 3.44 to 3.29 in the 1500,and turkeys gamze bulut went from 4.18 to 4.03.thats a huge gain.they were probably on steroids,as well as epo.
There are psychological ramifications as well: when people do drugs they could take everything else much more seriously as well in addition to having more confidence. I suspect that's the case with the athletes you cited.
Renato, thanks for the lengthy reply. I always enjoy hearing about your experiences and am rooting for you to be correct with your analysis since it's more empowering.
It is interesting to hear the hct changes you've seen: 45 when out of shape, then down to 41 with good fitness and back up to about 43 (with greater absolute hemoglobin mass than when hct at 45 I suspect?) approaching peak fitness.
The question is how many lorries can fit on the highway before a traffic jam develops, right? If the highway is 43% lorries and 57% open space, does the traffic breakdown at 44% lorries and 56% space? The idea is to create more lanes/space so the lorries can travel at higher speeds, rather than increase the amount of lorries and reduce the space, yes?
I suppose it's possible EPO does not have great effect on the population you work with in general. Clearly it works for sea-level caucasians, so maybe oxygen delivery is a greater limiter in general for that general population. What then is the limiter for the elite group you often work with?
does anyone else see how long and annoying retardos posts are and just scrolls down? i used to read his stuff but anymore its so annoying and based on this idea that he is GOD of all things running, as if he hangs out with vent all the time.
again as so many have pointed out retardo claims EPO and PEDS dont work on his athletes because then he would lose his claim as the GREATEST COACH OF ALL TIME.
here is an idea retardo. go to mexico and train the taramaru indians. they live at altitude and have for generations, running is their CULTURE. my guess is why you cant coach anywhere but kenya is because of the PED use you get to do there. but i get damon martin, joe vigil and vin can go anywhere and make runners better, cause they are GREAT coaches. lets see you take some no name 9:20 two miler and make them run world class times, oh wait my bad aaron braun isnt world class enough for you
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
[quote]Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
My question for those interested is epo (or hormonal drugs for that matter) harder to detect in men? I still can't believe that Makhloufi wasn't busted Ramzi-style in London.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
As far as I know, gender doesn't figure into the blood stats used to easily identify EPO use over time. However, it requires the IAAF to do OOC blood tests. Which they don't do with any kind of meaningful frequency.
The classic EPO masking method is the "altitude training camp." Altitude messes with the same parameters the bio-passport uses. So, take EPO at altitude for a couple of weeks. Lay off the EPO for a week before your event. You get all the EPO benefits and never test positive.
The last numbers I saw were the IAAF doing urine tests.. Urine tests for EPO are a joke. You'd have to fail an IQ test to fail an EPO urinalysis.
Much like Radcliffe or Bolt, Makhloufi seems blessed by the IAAF. Maybe it was an old-fashioned bribe that buried a positive. Who knows.
Microdosing EPO would be the preferred method to avoid any positive test or ABP flag. The Ashenden et al. study showed that microdosing EPO doesn't flag the ABP while eliciting a 10% increase in Hb mass (about ~4 pt increase in Hct). And since testing generally isn't allowed between 11:00pm & 6:00am, athletes microdosing EPO would dose it after 11:00pm and test clean the next AM (if the anti-doping agencies could test during the nighttime hours, that would stop EPO microdosing in it's tracks).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951In addition, there's evidence that drinking large amounts of water interferes with ABP markers:
http://fasterskier.com/fsarticle/new-study-shows-chugging-water-before-doping-test-alters-biological-passport-markers/Passport era wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:[quote]Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
My question for those interested is epo (or hormonal drugs for that matter) harder to detect in men? I still can't believe that Makhloufi wasn't busted Ramzi-style in London.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
As far as I know, gender doesn't figure into the blood stats used to easily identify EPO use over time. However, it requires the IAAF to do OOC blood tests. Which they don't do with any kind of meaningful frequency.
The classic EPO masking method is the "altitude training camp." Altitude messes with the same parameters the bio-passport uses. So, take EPO at altitude for a couple of weeks. Lay off the EPO for a week before your event. You get all the EPO benefits and never test positive.
The last numbers I saw were the IAAF doing urine tests.. Urine tests for EPO are a joke. You'd have to fail an IQ test to fail an EPO urinalysis.
Much like Radcliffe or Bolt, Makhloufi seems blessed by the IAAF. Maybe it was an old-fashioned bribe that buried a positive. Who knows.
Microdosing EPO would be the preferred method to avoid any positive test or ABP flag. The Ashenden et al. study showed that microdosing EPO doesn't flag the ABP while eliciting a 10% increase in Hb mass (about ~4 pt increase in Hct). And since testing generally isn't allowed between 11:00pm & 6:00am, athletes microdosing EPO would dose it after 11:00pm and test clean the next AM (if the anti-doping agencies could test during the nighttime hours, that would stop EPO microdosing in it's tracks).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951In addition, there's evidence that drinking large amounts of water interferes with ABP markers:
http://fasterskier.com/fsarticle/new-study-shows-chugging-water-before-doping-test-alters-biological-passport-markers/
Doesn't alcohol also mess with the testing analysis?
makoulfi was the only athlete that got done for micera
on condition kept his world titles , others too big .
keep repeating myself regardless of other peds this stiff is dynamite.
just look what it did for alan webb
and him before and after , just not even close to same athlete
and bekele an amazing athlete becomes unbeatable , run whenever
whereever any time of year any surface ,conditions .
again not quite same after 2008 when had to switch to normal epo
now on igf-1 lr3 also for marathon so cant say not chronic doper
and better but still not micera good
..................................................................................
...........................................................................................
the continous bit is important , especially in people that not high responders
to normal epo , their kidneys epo receptors not as sensitive but if continuosly
hit receptors then can get a very high hct and otherwise only few get.
also a more stable hct is massive benefit , as is one injection a month
ask shaheen about sneaking off for that one second once a month conova
as one of few on list that picked for this stuff before approved for market
late 2007/ early 2008 .
just like hgh and carl lewis way before anyone else
or epo in 400m around 1987/88
with butch , select individuals within business test this shit out on athletes
first before approved and still only in trial phase
hgh approved 1985/86 .................. epo was it 1989
hgh was used by carl lewis firstn and then the racers
1981 or so for lewis , afew years before anyone else .
that was next paradigm shift in sprinting ..... steroids and hgh .........
gained that extra meter or so from previous times
pot luck with hgh and speed gains , only works for some in terms of speed
if liver is willing will turn it into THAT peptide
everywhere now igf-1 or well short acting molecule ,
what seeing in past decade is what stronger version can do
next change and gain came serious lifting with roids /hgh in later 80's.
..........................................................................................................
epo used in butch reynolds time and afew others
first used in kenya ironically in the sprints
when set 400m records there mirroring americans or not by accident,
before realised better for longer distances , and distances prefer ,history in , natural talent for. and then 400m was forgotten about
no more athletes were looked for this event until new dope , speed peptide.
igf-1 lr3 , with 400 mh now.
.................................................................................................................
Sorry for the late reply...It looks like you didn't understand what I meant by "fundamental notions". You asked me where my ideas come from. My response should be understood as "My ideas come from my basic understanding (fundamental notions) of the expected distribution of marathon talent, combined with expected distribution of performance gains due to EPO". If EPO works for everyone (your claim), if the EPO-use is rampant and prevalent (a common and often repeated claim), if the benefit is significant (9 minutes for Sumgong), was virtually undetectable until 2007, or 2009 with the ABP (more common claims), and is still undetectable today with micro-dosing and the excuse of altitude training (more common claims) then something isn't adding up that Paula's 3-minute advantage has lasted so long. If Sumgong is representative, it should only take someone of sub-2:27 clean ability, to take EPO, and then to run sub-2:18.We have to conclude that no one close to Paula's natural talent, took EPO. An amazing conclusion, made even more amazing when looking at the magnitude of the leaked blood values, and the patterns, suggesting to some here that she did not even take EPO, but blood transfusions.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
This is a really, really tortured post with some very strange logic.
Expected distributions come from formulas and equations, not "fundamental notions." Discussing expected distributions in terms of "fundamental notions" is just an attempt to try to make this sound scientific without any real substance.
In any case, distributions and the equations and formulas which define them don't really tell you a whole lot about the tails. Tails tend to be a bit idiosyncratic, especially when you are talking about one data point at the far end of the distribution. At this point, whatever you think the tail should or shouldn't be, the distribution is what it is. The existence of a single outlier doesn't tell us anything at all about whether EPO works or doesn't work.
Anyway, back to the original post...If, as it appears, jemima sumgong took EPO and improved her marathon time, that is a piece of evidence that tends to support the thesis that EPO works to improve marathon performance. The fact that she is slower than Paula is not a counter point to that piece of evidence.
rekrunner wrote:These ideas come from fundamental notions of the expected distributions of clean performance potential, and expected distribution of additional EPO benefits, in populations with large enough sample sizes, like the global sample of marathon times.
Neither of these factors alone, or combined, should be expected to produce one single three minute outlier from the global population of performances.
The fact that Paula is a significant outlier means that some factor, or combination of factors, outside of "clean potential" plus "EPO benefit", have uniquely contributed to Paula's performances. Unless the prevalence of EPO at the top is very small, or one, doping is not something that can be described as unique to Paula's performances.
If EPO works for everyone, and EPO worked for Paula, there must be other factors more significant than EPO, required to explain the 3 minute gap.
Part of the "strength" of the "EPO works for everybody" is based in part on studies showing how EPO works, at least for the subjects in the study. It's "studies on the mediocre" combined with "anecdotes" at the top.These studies, like the ones on the Scottish runners, and the Kenyan runners, and many like them, did not link performance improvements to improved recovery and harder training, but to changes in blood parameters and VO2max.To further evaluate this idea of "recover and train harder", we would need a study that attempts to measure recovery and training load. And we would need a "fair" way to determine how much we can allow the training load to increase, for the EPO subjects, versus non-EPO controls. After all, we couldn't increase the workload of the EPO subjects, while not changing the workload of the controls, and call that fair.
doctorj wrote:
Let me address the word training with you Renato: There is no denying that these athletes have trained hard, but the ability to recover and train even harder is where the doping comes in. If you deny that, then either you think we are naïve or you are the one being naïve.
aduck2002 wrote:
the continous bit is important , especially in people that not high responders
to normal epo , their kidneys epo receptors not as sensitive but if continuosly
hit receptors then can get a very high hct and otherwise only few get.
also a more stable hct is massive benefit , as is one injection a month
ask shaheen about sneaking off for that one second once a month conova
as one of few on list that picked for this stuff before approved for market
late 2007/ early 2008.
There's no differences between the first gen EPOs (alpha & beta) & CERA in terms of potency. The difference is the dose schedule of the two needed to achieve desired Hb/Hct levels. CERA has an added chemical to produce a much longer half-life. First gen EPOs require multi-day weekly injections vs once or twice monthly injections for CERA to achieve desired levels. The shorter interval of CERA administration can produce more RBCs and increase Hb levels. CERA was developed for people with disease pathologies (e.g., renal failure, anemia) that required an ESA but didn’t want the inconvenience of having to do injections multiple days per week (plus the more injections the risk of infection increases). Athletes don't enjoy injecting themselves very often either, so that's probably why CERA became a popular doping ESA with them when it came out in 2006/07.
The risk athletes have with CERA is it's long half-life of 140 hrs + vs 19 hrs (subcutaneous) & 7 hrs (IV) for first gen EPO. This is why when CERA became available and a subsequent test was developed with the help of the manufacturer, there was a rash of big name athletes from athletics to cycling testing positive. Fortunately for anti-doping, a top athlete such as Ramzi switched to CERA and was nailed after the Beijing (he had been avoiding a positive test with first gen EPO when he was registering those high off-scores of 148 & 157 during the 05 WCs, and WADA was routinely target testing him from that point onward).
Though they caught a big fish like Ramzi, consider how many athletes must have gotten away with doping by "not" using CERA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_erythropoietin_receptor_activatorhttps://rrtjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41100-016-0071-xrekrunner wrote:
We have to conclude that no one close to Paula's natural talent, took EPO. An amazing conclusion, made even more amazing when looking at the magnitude of the leaked blood values, and the patterns, suggesting to some here that she did not even take EPO, but blood transfusions.
Tee hee. You had to relate all of that to Paula again. Her "natural talent"? Based on only one international, XC, win as professional runner until age 26? Then marathon WR, then PR over 5000 at age 30?
And her leaked in-competition data - raises of 20 - 30% in Hb concentration within a few days ("coincidentally" never mentioned by IAAF...) - were the ones indicative of blood transfusions, while her leaked OOC data were indicative of EPO use. Traditional text book doping: EPO in the preparation, topped up with fresh blood before the races.
Thank you for reminding everyone of Paula's case in your special way again. Keep it coming.