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

I don't speak specifically about this case, but it's normal that for athletes living and training ALWAYS in altitude, going sea level means a reduction of Hb, because in altitude (that is their normal situation) they have ADAPTATION to hypossia, and at sea level they have less stimulus to produce erythrocytes. That's the reason because in Kenyan, Ethiopian and Ugandan living in altitude, the level of Hct when they go sea level DECREASES, but the ability to perform is the best possible (if their training is correct, and enough) because they have between 10% and 15% of total volume of blood higher than athletes always training at sea level.

The case of Paula Radcliffe was the opposite. She was an athlete normally training at sea level, and going to altitude provoked a REACTION (not adaptation), with increase in the number of RBC and Hct. If she was tested before going to altitude for her training, and immediately after going back at sea level, but not during the stay in altitude, the values after going back are arguable higher than before going to altitude (for example, for Hb, 14.5 before altitude, 16.5 at the end of the altitude, and 15.8 at sea level two days after going down). These are not the data of Paula (that I don't remember), only an example of how the two situations (test with athletes living and training in altitude, and test with athletes training only for short periods in altitude, but usually living and working at sea level) are not superimposable.

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.

Why don't you just ask your resident LRC scientist, Allen53? Serious question.

westjensontexas wrote:

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.

That's literally exactly what I said but I'm glad you agree

Wow. The "authorities" have no shame. The man is DEAD and they can't just leave well enough alone. Have to go after him even now.

what happened to honoring the dead? wrote:

Wow. The "authorities" have no shame. The man is DEAD and they can't just leave well enough alone. Have to go after him even now.

You’re joking, right?

what happened to honoring the dead? wrote:

Wow. The "authorities" have no shame. The man is DEAD and they can't just leave well enough alone. Have to go after him even now.

You do know there is more than one Wanjiru in the sport, right?

he case of Paula Radcliffe was the opposite. She was an athlete normally training at sea level, and going to altitude provoked a REACTION (not adaptation), with increase in the number of RBC and Hct. If she was tested before going to altitude for her training, and immediately after going back at sea level, but not during the stay in altitude, the values after going back are arguable higher than before going to altitude (for example, for Hb, 14.5 before altitude, 16.5 at the end of the altitude, and 15.8 at sea level two days after going down). These are not the data of Paula (that I don't remember), only an example of how the two situations (test with athletes living and training in altitude, and test with athletes training only for short periods in altitude, but usually living and working at sea level) are not superimposable. https://get-tubemate.com and https://get-mobdro.com

rojo wrote:

https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/disciplinary-process/en/201008-Decision-WA-v-Wanjiru-Redacted-1.pdf

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.

rojo, without knowing the total blood volume changes, all of this is pure pseudoscientific speculation. You do understand this simple point don't you? I hope so, most of the 'experts' have no idea.

he case of Paula Radcliffe was the opposite. She was an athlete normally training at sea level, and going to altitude provoked a REACTION (not adaptation), with increase in the number of RBC and Hct. If she was tested before going to altitude for her training, and immediately after going back at sea level, but not during the stay in altitude, the values after going back are arguable higher than before going to altitude (for example, for Hb, 14.5 before altitude, 16.5 at the end of the altitude, and 15.8 at sea level two days after going down). These are not the data of Paula (that I don't remember), only an example of how the two situations (test with athletes living and training in altitude, and test with athletes training only for short periods in altitude, but usually living and working at sea level) are not superimposable

..

Not disagreeing on your point on Kiptum, but 50%+ rules on HCT are pretty bunk. I was a mediocre runner who couldn't crack 16min for 5k but i could get my hematocrit up to 53 from a pre altitude level of 44. Different people react differently.

This is why the ABP tracks changes and also takes into account time spent at which altitudes.

As you point out though, it doesn't compensate for people already doping, I.e. if I doped to get my pre altitude baseline to 50, before I got on the passport system then I could conceivably push my levels even higher when at altitude and just claim "high baseline and then altitude boost" and have that be hard to disprove.