Sunday Mail Has More Details on Paula's Blood Values and Off Scores + News She'll Put up £1m for an MRI lie detector

Well there are studies, like for EPO, at the shorter distances which support High-Low training improves performance, for the well trained subjects.Altitude training can be done "ethically" on elites.We can be reasonably sure that for well trained amateurs, both EPO and altitude can have some immediate benefit (although performance can vary).Both altitude and EPO studies, suffer from the same problems of projecting conclusions from amateurs to elites, projecting conclusions from short term studies at short distances, to the longer marathon distance, and also controlling placebo effects. If it's a problem for one, it's a problem for both.Psychological benefits are very difficult to separate from physical effects in any study, especially studies that would ethically require telling the participants that they are doping. It's also hard to hide altitude training from study subjects too. Some say it doesn't matter, as even psychological effects are real.

cleans wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

In the case of the marathon, real data regarding the "PE" benefit of any PED is scarce, if not non-existent. The strongest arguments that EPO works in the marathon are "proof by example" (see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

for the limitations of this kind of proof), which at best show that EPO can work, but these examples cannot always be generalized to all cases.

Interesting. Two honest questions, then:

1) Can it be conclusively proven that altitude training is performance-enhancing?

2) can it be conclusively proven that any PED is, in and of itself, performance-enhancing? Maybe Renato's claim that it makes you believe and train harder is the real performance enhancement?

rekrunner wrote:

The Sunday Times gives us a clue about the difference between marathons and shorter events. When they collected "suspicious" statistics, the 1500m was "54%", the steeple, 5K, and 10K were around "30%", while the marathon was "11%". Suspicious values seem to be an exception for IAAF class athletes in the marathon.

Does this not make PR's blood-test results even more suspicious or unusual? You have someone with at least three different suspicious blood-test results who competes in an event where suspicious results are considerably less frequent than in other events.

Here's the Tyler Hamilton quote from "The Secret Race" (credit to Aragaon):

Hamilton says possible and qualified yes - meaning there is still an advantage but it could be overcome on a given day. Sure there is a bigger benefit to coming back day after day in a tour but many doped all year /season. That helped them train harder and maintain fitness for the classics as well. The advantage may have been less significant than the aggregate by the end of the tour but it still exists and allows more cyclists to compete at a higher level. When we see a big lead pack going through the halfway point Of a marathon in 61, you start to wonder if there are dopers among them.

Yes of course. You know I'm in the minority thinking that altitude, and the 2 hour rule eliminates any suspicion surrounding these 3 points.But the big question is how well EPO works in elite marathon performance.Here is real data that suggests the unimportance of extra red blood cells for winning world medals in the marathon:- 1 out of 9 "Olympic and world championship medals were won by athletes who have had a suspicious blood test result"Don't forget the other 89%:- 8 out of 9 Olympic and world championship medals were won by athletes who have NEVER had a suspicious blood test resultExtra red blood cells were 3x more prevalent for winning world medals in the 5K and 10K (6 out of 9 non-suspicious), and 5x more prevalent for the 1500m (4 out of 9 non-suspicious).Even the "heptathlon and decathlon" world medalists were 17% (1.5x) suspicious.That's a pretty convincing trend that shows, either:- blood doping is less important for winning world medals at longer distances at slower paces- or at least, the athletes themselves believe that blood doping is less importantWe can also see that EPO didn't help Rita Jeptoo or Lilya Shobukhova (or anyone else in the history of women) break 2:18:00.

preciously jaded wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The Sunday Times gives us a clue about the difference between marathons and shorter events. When they collected "suspicious" statistics, the 1500m was "54%", the steeple, 5K, and 10K were around "30%", while the marathon was "11%". Suspicious values seem to be an exception for IAAF class athletes in the marathon.

Does this not make PR's blood-test results even more suspicious or unusual? You have someone with at least three different suspicious blood-test results who competes in an event where suspicious results are considerably less frequent than in other events.

rekrunner wrote:

At ARRS.com, some numbers guys calculated that *ALL* of the elite women in London 2003 ran approximately 1:45 minutes faster than they expected.

I have never seen any compelling evidence to support this, in fact it seems very suspect. Just looking at the top 5, only Paula's time stands out relative to their other performances.

They only test for what they know, got example a CERA test came in years after usage started. Dwain Chambers was using 'The Clear' and the authorities only found out about it through a whistleblower sending a sample in. Any stats on percentages of 'clean' athletes are massively skewed by this. Most people say that at least 30-40% are dirty.

[/quote]

Not really a very convincing trend

"Seven London marathon victories in 12 years under doping suspicion"

"In London, seven first places, six second and seven thirds were taken by athletes with blood tests deemed suspicious by experts who analysed the leaked database."

more from the article you found:

The organisers of the London and Chicago marathons have told the paper the International Association of Athletics Federations, and the national anti-doping authorities failed to tell them that some athletes were competing with blood that appeared so heavily doped as to threaten their health.

He insisted that, although the organisers were paying “thousands of pounds” for athlete testing, they were not told of the results by the IAAF, and had been unaware of the suspicious data.

“The IAAF needs to do more to stop people from starting who have blood values that are out of normal range.”

In an earlier statement, he said: “We believe there are people in our sport who are cheating and everyone has a part to play to protect those who are not. We continue to be at the forefront of anti-doping measures for marathon runners as we are determined to make marathon running a safe haven from doping but we cannot do it all on our own and rely heavily on the IAAF.”

The experts concluded that some of the athletes ran the risk of a stroke or heart attack by using blood transfusions or banned red-cell-boosting drugs, which had the effect of making their blood so dense that they should have been seeking hospital treatment rather than competing.

The IAAF has agreed to hand over its full database to Wada, but has also written to the Sunday Times demanding that it destroys its copy.

nothing to see here

The Spanish and Moroccans were all doped during the epo era and won many marathons

The Spanish were all clients of fuentes

Here is a study on altitude training and runners which has the word "elite" in it:

J Sci Med Sport. 2009 Jan;12(1):67-72. Epub 2008 Feb 20.

Improved running economy and increased hemoglobin mass in elite runners after extended moderate altitude exposure.

Saunders PU1, Telford RD, Pyne DB, Hahn AG, Gore CJ.

Author information

Abstract

There is conflicting evidence whether hypoxia improves running economy (RE), maximal O(2) uptake (V(O)(2max)), haemoglobin mass (Hb(mass)) and performance, and what total accumulated dose is necessary for effective adaptation. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of an extended hypoxic exposure on these physiological and performance measures. Nine elite middle distance runners were randomly assigned to a live high-train low simulated altitude group (ALT) and spent 46+/-8 nights (mean+/-S.D.) at 2860+/-41m. A matched control group (CON, n=9) lived and trained near sea level ( approximately 600m). ALT decreased submaximal V(O)(2) (Lmin(-1)) (-3.2%, 90% confidence intervals, -1.0% to -5.2%, p=0.02), increased Hb(mass) (4.9%, 2.3-7.6%, p=0.01), decreased submaximal heart rate (-3.1%, -1.8% to -4.4%, p=0.00) and had a trivial increase in V(O)(2max) (1.5%, -1.6 to 4.8; p=0.41) compared with CON. There was a trivial correlation between change in Hb(mass) and change in V(O)(2max) (r=0.04, p=0.93). Hypoxic exposure of approximately 400h was sufficient to improve Hb(mass), a response not observed with shorter exposures. Although total O(2) carrying capacity was improved, the mechanism(s) to explain the lack of proportionate increase in V(O)(2max) were not identified.

PMID: 18069063 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

and here is another on "elite" runners:

J Appl Physiol (1985). 2004 Mar;96(3):931-7. Epub 2003 Nov 7.

Improved running economy in elite runners after 20 days of simulated moderate-altitude exposure.

Saunders PU1, Telford RD, Pyne DB, Cunningham RB, Gore CJ, Hahn AG, Hawley JA.

Author information

Abstract

To investigate the effect of altitude exposure on running economy (RE), 22 elite distance runners [maximal O(2) consumption (Vo(2)) 72.8 +/- 4.4 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1); training volume 128 +/- 27 km/wk], who were homogenous for maximal Vo(2) and training, were assigned to one of three groups: live high (simulated altitude of 2,000-3,100 m)-train low (LHTL; natural altitude of 600 m), live moderate-train moderate (LMTM; natural altitude of 1,500-2,000 m), or live low-train low (LLTL; natural altitude of 600 m) for a period of 20 days. RE was assessed during three submaximal treadmill runs at 14, 16, and 18 km/h before and at the completion of each intervention. Vo(2), minute ventilation (Ve), respiratory exchange ratio, heart rate, and blood lactate concentration were determined during the final 60 s of each run, whereas hemoglobin mass (Hb(mass)) was measured on a separate occasion. All testing was performed under normoxic conditions at approximately 600 m. Vo(2) (l/min) averaged across the three submaximal running speeds was 3.3% lower (P = 0.005) after LHTL compared with either LMTM or LLTL. Ve, respiratory exchange ratio, heart rate, and Hb(mass) were not significantly different after the three interventions. There was no evidence of an increase in lactate concentration after the LHTL intervention, suggesting that the lower aerobic cost of running was not attributable to an increased anaerobic energy contribution. Furthermore, the improved RE could not be explained by a decrease in Ve or by preferential use of carbohydrate as a metabolic substrate, nor was it related to any change in Hb(mass). We conclude that 20 days of LHTL at simulated altitude improved the RE of elite distance runners.

It looks like rekrunner is wrong again.

rekrunner said:

Well there are studies, like for EPO, at the shorter distances which support High-Low training improves performance, for the well trained subjects.

Altitude training can be done "ethically" on elites.

We can be reasonably sure that for well trained amateurs, both EPO and altitude can have some immediate benefit (although performance can vary).

Both altitude and EPO studies, suffer from the same problems of projecting conclusions from amateurs to elites, projecting conclusions from short term studies at short distances, to the longer marathon distance, and also controlling placebo effects. If it's a problem for one, it's a problem for both.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6881090&page=90#ixzz46JIK7oJH

I think that EPO cheats should be banned for life.

Not simply because they are cheats, but because that sh!t kills.

And take the big prize money out of marathon running. It's one less carrot for the cheats who are making their sport as credible as WWE wrestling.

Isn't it amazing that Renato comes on here and claims none of the Italians got better with drugs or blood doping yet now, with tighter controls we have zero Otslians competing at a world class level. There was a period right around the early 90's when Italian, Morroccan, and Spanish distance running took off, depth, quality, it had the lot. Funny how it coincided with a very dirty period in the sport and a lot links between t&f athletes and cycling doctors. But they all found they ran just as well without the drugs, so where are they now???

just sayin wrote:

The Spanish and Moroccans were all doped during the epo era and won many marathons

The Spanish were all clients of fuentes

Maybe Paula was a client of a special doctor for "technical support".

Conspiracy stories about Dr. Fuentes go all the way back to 1992, the same year that Paula was diagnosed with "anemia".

The Olympics were held in Barcelona Spain in 1992 when Fermin Cacho won the 1500m gold medal for Spain. It was a special performance.

Why are the Chinese women so much slower now than in 1993?Dr. Gabriele Rosa came to Kenya in 1991 and left the sport of cycling he was previously associated with...because he found it to be too dirty with all the EPO doping that was going on in cycling. His son Frederico Rosa is also a doctor.Dr. Conconi started major use of autologous blood transfusions in Italian athletes around the year 1980 in many sports including track, cycling, and cross-country skiing.Alberto Cova-the 1984 10k Olympic gold medalist from Italy did autologous blood transfusions. Renato Canova has already stated that Alberto Cova did autologous blood transfusions before they were banned in the year 1985 by the IOC. Dr. Michele Ferrari worked with Dr. Conconi and was his most famous student. Dr. Conconi is famous for introducing EPO use into the sport of cycling.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Conconi There is nothing to see here. Please move along.

EPO logue wrote:

Isn't it amazing that Renato comes on here and claims none of the Italians got better with drugs or blood doping yet now, with tighter controls we have zero Otslians competing at a world class level. There was a period right around the early 90's when Italian, Morroccan, and Spanish distance running took off, depth, quality, it had the lot. Funny how it coincided with a very dirty period in the sport and a lot links between t&f athletes and cycling doctors. But they all found they ran just as well without the drugs, so where are they now???

Rjm33, not rekrunner, but you are wrong again.

The studies you showed above were absolutely useless, and of course made without the contribution of any expert of methodology.

a) The "elite" for the researchers are very far from any category of real "elite".

For researchers, if the Marathon World includes 200,000 runners between the WR and who jogs 6 hours, "elite" are runners able to run "under 2:40". This is a big mistake, since if we want to really study some phenomen, we need to limit the research to "omogeneous subjects". This means that if we want to discover what happens in the body of top Marathon runners, we need to study subjects under 2:06, since 2:10 already can't be considered "elite" (till now, 828 athletes were able to run under 2:10 !).

To consider "elite" athletes of 2:30 >< 2:40 means also that there is no clue about their training, very much "soft" as volume and intensity than the training of the real elite.

I don't have any doubt EPO can help athletes with this type of "soft" training to increase their performances, but this happens because these athletes are not helped enough by their own training.

b) Every research is made with subjects normally living and training at sea level, going altitude only for 40 days (first research) or 20 days (second research). Also an idiot understand that this category has nothing to do with athletes "born, living and training in altitude", since their normal condition is exactly the opposite of the condition of the subjects chosen for the research.

c) If somebody thinks that altitude can produce some increase in VO2 max, is somebody who really doesn't have any clue about training. In 1995, Saltin and Terrados went Kenya for testing, among other factors, the VO2 max of some of the best athletes. In the Group there was also Anders Garderud, Swedish Olympic Champion for steeple in 1976, and organizer of Stockholm meeting where Peter Koech bettered the WR of Henry Rono.

When they met Peter Koech (already no longer a runner in the last 3 years), Garderud was not able to recognize him, being 30 kg heavier than when beated the WR. In this conditions, Peter achieved the higher VO2 max Saltin and Terrados ever could see, clearly showing the influence of training on VO2 max is practically very limited (don't forget Derek Clayton, first man running Marathon under 2:10, had a VO2 max of 69 only).

d) It's obvious that the most part of researchers want to use some test following the usual protocols, but can't obtain different results, till when the subjects are Always amateurs or joggers at disposal of the researchers.

Different is THE RESEARCHERS ARE AT DISPOSAL OF TOP ATHLETES since this means TO FOLLOW THEIR TRAINING FOR CONTROLLING THE CHANGES IN THEIR VALUES INDUCTED BY THE TRAINING ITSELF.

In other words, NEVER there was some research about the effects of training, and all the data you can produce are total bullshits, if applied to the omogeneous category of top athletes born, living and training in altitude.

The conclusions of the researchers are, sometimes, so obvious for coaches working at top level, that we don't understand the reason of some useless research. For example,

"Although total O(2) carrying capacity was improved, the mechanism(s) to explain the lack of proportionate increase in V(O)(2max) were not identified",

means that the researchers supposed a relation between the carrying capacity of O2 and the increase in VO2 max, that, how I explained above, doesn't exist.

The reality is that, till now, there were scientists studying oranges but thinking the final data were good for apples, and the most part of posters in LR, including you, continue to do the mistake to apply the studies for one category of subjects to another, more limited, category of subjects.

Yes, all are human beings, but their attitude are not at the same level, and the modifications inducted by their training (which is very much different) make them different subjects, when we speak about specific attitudes, and specific reaction to external stimuli.

For using your words, "nothing to see here".

It's Amazing that you don't understand the social differences between people born in 1955 - 1970 and people born after 1990. I don't know which Country are you from, but is not very difficult to see everywhere that Young people today don't have real will for endurance events in Europe. Where are in UK followers of Coe, Cram, Ovett, Moorcroft, Rowland, McKean, Bedford, Black, Brendan Foster, Ron Hill, Ian Thompson and many other ? Maybe all these athletes used blood doping BEFORE it existed, or the reason is the difficulty of recruitment of good talents ?

In 1982, World Cross Country Championships were in Italy. The junior national team was formed by Ranieri Carenza (13'45"), Stefano Mei (13'45"), Francesco Panetta (13'46"), Salvatore Nicosia (13'52") and Marco Gozzano (13'53"). Among these athletes, Panetta became World Champion in steeple in 1987, European Champion, Always in steeple, in 1990, and won silver in WCh 1987 on 10000m and in European Championships 1986 in steeple. Stefano Mei won European Championships 1986 in 10000m, and silver medal in 5000m in the same edition.

The best Italian juniores, 3 years ago, were at the level of 14'30" in 5000m, 45" seconds slower than the athletes of 30 years before.

Do you think there is some relation with EPO, or with a different society (not necessarily worse than today) ?

Renato...It is nice to hear from you that I am wrong again.

I do not think you understood the studies, as one had runners with an average VO2max of around 73 ml/kg/min, which is elite level. Both studies involved improvements in running economy, which was NOT correlated with changes in hemoglobin levels or VO2max.

Renato, these studies actually support your theories on performance improvements from altitude training due to other factors besides only hemoglobin or VO2max changes. I believe BOTH the Hb and VO2max changes and the other factors are both important. I agree with you that there are OTHER important factors.

Some of the other factors include increased mitochondrial efficiency inside the muscle cells, increases in pH buffering, and increased lactate transport proteins with changes in lactate metabolism as well.

I understand that none of the studies I present will represent your definition of a true "elite" athlete. I only posted the studies to try to show that rekrunner was wrong again...but you have tricked me once again...and have stated that actually the one who is wrong again is me.

We also both agree on the overuse of pharmaceuticals and drugs in general in society. I take no prescription drugs at all myself. None. I will write prescriptions for other people to use pharmaceutical drugs only if really needed for the treatment of a medical condition.

I think we will always disagree on some things but agree on others.

How about a change of subject for a bit?

Renato...I would love to hear about some great training sessions and training schedules from some of the great runners in Kenya.

Do you have anything from Geoffrey Kamworor, Stanley Biwott, Bedan Karoki, Paul Tanui, Priscah Jeptoo, or Florence Kiplagat?

What is the training like at the Gianni Demadonna camp in Ethiopia where the #1and #2 women and #1 man from Ethiopia from the Boston marathon yesterday all train?

What is their training like in Ethiopia? Is it any different than the type of training in Kenya?