Science nerds, 2017 London champ Daniel Wanjiru has officially been banned. Read why here.

Didn’t read yet, but the ABP works by detecting changes.

Different than a EPO test which detects the presence of the hormone, the ABP works by identifying variations that could inly have been caused by doping. It relies on there being variations to work.

It detects blood transfusions most easily. It has a harder time detecting EPO use because it can mimic the likely changes resulting from going up and down altitude. EPO use can also be calibrated to minimize it’s changes to blood parameters (called microdosing).

It has always been speculated that an athlete doping in minor ranks could keep doping without detection. This is because their baseline When beginning the ABP is not in fact a natural baseline.

The speculation would be that Wanjiru had been taking EPO the whole time, and got caught during some sort of period of withdrawl/non-use.

Just reading through now

The high HGB and low rtc of sample 14 indicates a blood transfusion. He had higher than normal blood mass, and lower than normal new blood cells (the rtc measure). Clear cut blood transfusion.

I always knew he was a doper. I'm just happy that we can recognise Bekele as the winner of London 2017. If he didn't have blisters on his feet from poor shoes then he would have gotten the WR of 2:02:57 back then.

Banana Bread wrote:

I always knew he was a doper.

How did you always know that?

"Clear cut blood transfusion."

Seriously, blood packing seems somewhat less trivial than injecting EPO. That takes some resources. Who was his agent/coach/ sponsor/team? Who are the medical teams involved? Is there a systemic problem, covering a broader spectrum over there?

Teech wrote:

The high HGB and low rtc of sample 14 indicates a blood transfusion. He had higher than normal blood mass, and lower than normal new blood cells (the rtc measure). Clear cut blood transfusion.

Or maybe it could mean severe dehydration or faulty lab equipment as happened with Radcliffe's samples …..

derrrrrr derr der wrote:

Banana Bread wrote:

I always knew he was a doper.

How did you always know that?

"Clear cut blood transfusion."

Seriously, blood packing seems somewhat less trivial than injecting EPO. That takes some resources. Who was his agent/coach/ sponsor/team? Who are the medical teams involved? Is there a systemic problem, covering a broader spectrum over there?

I have good intuition on who is doping

Banana Bread wrote:

derrrrrr derr der wrote:

How did you always know that?

"Clear cut blood transfusion."

Seriously, blood packing seems somewhat less trivial than injecting EPO. That takes some resources. Who was his agent/coach/ sponsor/team? Who are the medical teams involved? Is there a systemic problem, covering a broader spectrum over there?

I have good intuition on who is doping

Probably Bekele. No way that he was so inconsistent and comes out to run 2:01:41. More likely doping to get that good. Also probably why he drop out of London 2020 so he won’t be scrutinized for doping.

rojo wrote:

I ask that because it seems odd to me that he had no abnormal values for 2017 when he ran 2:05 and beat Bekele in an epic duel to win London but had big time ABP problems in 2019 when he sucked and ran 2:08 for 11th at London. If he was a doper in 2019, I assume he most definitely had to be a doper in 2017 when he was way better.

He only had two tests in 2017 (one three days before London, and one in June) - blood dopers have most of their tests normal, see for example here (going back to a publication from 2010):

Teech wrote:

It has always been speculated that an athlete doping in minor ranks could keep doping without detection. This is because their baseline When beginning the ABP is not in fact a natural baseline.

Yes - see for example Kiptum's case. Here too we have an athlete who came in flying with Hb = 16.7 g/dL, which is about 53% Hct, give or take. For comparison, there was 50% hematocrit limit in cycling, meaning a value above and you weren't allowed to start.

The baseline is also flexible, meaning if you increase it patiently from year to year you can dope more from year to year.

Finally, it has been demonstrated that the ABP only flags full blood transfusions, whereas 200 mL (or its EPO equivalent) are safe. And if you get a surprise test the day after a 500 mL transfusion, just don't open the door to the tester (installing a quiet doorbell is a good idea).

All of that is why only such a small fraction of blood dopers are caught.

dodge ball wrote:

Banana Bread wrote:

I have good intuition on who is doping

Probably Bekele. No way that he was so inconsistent and comes out to run 2:01:41. More likely doping to get that good. Also probably why he drop out of London 2020 so he won’t be scrutinized for doping.

He changed a lot of things to run 2:01:41. He sorted out injury issues and diet and trained properly. He didn't do those things in previous races. That is why he ran 2:01:41. He ran the half mary in London back in March and destroyed the field there with ease. If he was worried about scrutiny he wouldn't have gone there in March. He is recovering from a calf injury. I look forward to seeing him get the WR soon. If you dope then it is not possible to run at the highest level in the world for 20 years without failure a test.

It's a shame he wasn't a GB athlete, in which case the doping authorities would have been characteristically incurious of the abnormal reading and accepted any excuse of:

- simply wanting it more

- use of marginal gains

- it was a hot day

The report seems to suggest it was a blood transfusion (point 22 - "and it is highly likely that it was caused by the

use of prohibited methods, with or without the use of prohibited substances.”) as well as maybe EPO.

I guess one possible reason for your second question is that in 2017 his test was 3 days before the London Marathon, whereas in 2019 it was just a day before the race (the Big Half).

And as I pointed out in another thread, it's fascinating that in this judgement, it is specifically pointed out that coming down from altitude should result in a reduction of Hb, whereas in the Paula Radcliffe case, she was able to claim (backed up by the IAAF) that her high Hb score and therefore high off-score in 2012 was due to having recently been at altitude - literally the complete opposite conclusion.! What a mess.

off score madness wrote:

Teech wrote:

The high HGB and low rtc of sample 14 indicates a blood transfusion. He had higher than normal blood mass, and lower than normal new blood cells (the rtc measure). Clear cut blood transfusion.

Or maybe it could mean severe dehydration or faulty lab equipment as happened with Radcliffe's samples …..

The low RET% in sample 15 a few days after the high HGB of sample 14 is consistent with a blood infusion and not consistent with severe dehydration.

To Rojo's first question samples 3, 4, and 12 were excluded from the analysis because of non-compliance with (unspecified) guidelines, but have no significant impact on the finding if included. Also the text says sample 4 was suspicious.

rojo wrote:

Science experts, please take a look and tell me what you think. I have a few questions.

1) Why were samples 3, 4 and 12 not considered? Do we know what those results were? If they had been considered, were they pro or anti-Wanjiru.

2) If you take a transfusion or EPO, how long would your blood values be screwed up and detectable by the ABP.

I ask that because it seems odd to me that he had no abnormal values for 2017 when he ran 2:05 and beat Bekele in an epic duel to win London but had big time ABP problems in 2019 when he sucked and ran 2:08 for 11th at London. If he was a doper in 2019, I assume he most definitely had to be a doper in 2017 when he was way better.

There were some issues with sample collection/storage that didn't follow protocol for samples 3, 4 & 12. However, sample 4 recorded a highly suspicious value = anti-Wanjiru:

"Further, samples 3, 4 and 12 were not considered in line with WADA guidelines. But when they are included in the Athlete’s ABP, the Expert Panel confirmed that the Athlete’s HB values for sample 14 remain abnormal for HB and OFF-score with a specificity of 99.99%. Moreover, sample 4 itself records a highly suspicious value for OFF-score (collected on 18 January 2018, four days after the Athlete’s participation in the Houston Half Marathon)."

The biggie here is sample #14 (19.4 Hgb/58.2 Hct) with a 132 Off-score which is less than 1 in 10,000 chance of being undoped (99.99 specificity).

On your second question, it depends what methods & strategy a doper would use. The EPO microdosing study by Asheden et al (Eur J Appl Physiol) showed microdosing EPO over several weeks raised Hgb mass by 10% in which the ABP software didn't flag the passport as suspicious. This would be equivalent to two (2) bags of reinfused blood. So, in this case an athlete could continue to dope through IC without tripping the ABP but the risk of testing positive for EPO would exist, particularly with improved sensitivity of the testing for microdoses of EPO. However, transfusions would eliminate testing positive for an ESA, and if blood values stay within the upper intraindividual limits, the ABP most likely wouldn't be flagged.

Teech wrote:

Just reading through now

The high HGB and low rtc of sample 14 indicates a blood transfusion. He had higher than normal blood mass, and lower than normal new blood cells (the rtc measure). Clear cut blood transfusion.

Generally, it's difficult to discern between an ESA & transfusions where the characteristics are high Hgb & low Ret% (the off-phase of an ESA will result in elevated Hgb with a significant & prolonged suppression of Ret%. Similar pattern with reinfused blood - elevated Hgb & suppressed Ret%). In these situations, the anti-doping experts will conclude that sufficient evidence existed to show use of a Prohibited Substance (ESA) or Prohibited Method (blood transfusions). However, in this case expert panel is favoring a blood transfusion over an ESA for sample 14:

“likely by reinfusing before leaving altitude at least two or more bags of previously stored blood cells”16 on 8 March 2019. That would have been followed by withdrawal of blood either shortly after the race or after return to Kenya on 11 or 12 March 2019."

Here's a good overview of the ABP by anti-doping expert Olaf Schumacher:

Gibstar wrote:

It's a shame he wasn't a GB athlete, in which case the doping authorities would have been characteristically incurious of the abnormal reading and accepted any excuse of:

- simply wanting it more

- use of marginal gains

- it was a hot day

Hi El K, good to see you back.

trollism wrote:

Gibstar wrote:

It's a shame he wasn't a GB athlete, in which case the doping authorities would have been characteristically incurious of the abnormal reading and accepted any excuse of:

- simply wanting it more

- use of marginal gains

- it was a hot day

Hi El K, good to see you back.

El K is annoying but these are valid points anyway. We know that Radcliffe is a doper and for sure Seb Coe protected her. If you are an athlete of that caliber from any nation I believe you'd be protected as well.

rojo wrote:

If he was a doper in 2019, I assume he most definitely had to be a doper in 2017 when he was way better.

Or maybe he started doping after 2017 because he was unable physically or mentally to do the work necessary to maintain that level of performance.

Citizen Runner wrote:

The low RET% in sample 15 a few days after the high HGB of sample 14 is consistent with a blood infusion and not consistent with severe dehydration.

That was 0.85, and Paula was twice flagged with less than 0.5%.