drug tests -- and drug headlines -- are false <-->

It has always been my ambition to put history.

Thank you for noticing.

RunningArt,

The drugs didn't save his life. He survived in spite of them.

I have a very good friend who had the same diagnosis, was told he would be dead in a month without the treatments, walked out of the hospital without any of them, and is doing very well thank you very much.

By the way, that was 25 years ago when they said he would be dead in a month, and he's about the healthiest person that I know.

DR: "1.Sprint times for 200m have not improved significantly in the last 40 years. Championship races were run in much the same times then as they are now. Thus the advent of any more extensive drug use has not resulted in faster performances for top speed."

Once I stopped laughing, I did some quick aritmetic. The 200m world record has improve about 5.48% in the last 40 years, compared with 4.6% in the 5K and 6.72% in the 10K. To even suggest that the 200 hasn't improved significantly (20.44 FAT in 1963 to 19.32 today) represents a deep pyshcoisis.

I won't even bother to metion the fact that the drug of choice of a marathon runner is different to that of a 200m sprinter, as that might confuse your feeble brain.

DR "Considering endurance events, top runners run the marathon in about 32 times the speed of their mile (1500m). For example, a 4:00 miler on an endurance program should be able to run a 2:08 marathon."

There have been 100 sub-2:08 perfromances in marathon history by about 75 men.

More than 400 men have broken 3:53 for the mile, while at least 400 more have broken four minutes.

Why do you think those numbers don't add up?

DR:"What is the "normal" range of EPO values, what is the range of values that would be considered a "positive" result, and what is the range of any overlap?

Well... greater than or equal to 80% is taken as positive based on the formula of:

%basic isoforms =(sum of areas of basic isoforms/sum of areas of all isoforms)100

DR:"What is the range where false positives are likely to occur and what is the percentage of those false positives?"

WADA says the EPO Urine test has shown no false positives, so that would make the percentage zero. (It has, however, shown false negatives). This was based on an emphrical study of 1152 elite athletes.

I didn't bother to read the rest ...

Please find another discussion group.

Martin

runningart2004 wrote:

What do drugs like Procrit do dunesy? Absolutely nothing? Let's ask Lance Armstrong if the drugs he was taking saved his life? Did the cancer just disappear on it's own?

Since you asked, here is my view on what drugs like Procrit etc do.

An example close to home. My dad is 87, not doing very well, and has a very low oxygen carrying capacity in his blood. He goes to doctors regularly and takes their advice, a primarly reason, I feel, that he is in the condition that he is.

However, the point is this.

He gets a shot once a week that is supposed to raise the O2 capacity of his blood.

The shot is around $1100, for 1 shot, once a week.

Now, you can take a lot of untrained or poorly trained runners and such shots might boost their O2 capacities a little bit, but to be honest I don't give a shit if it does.

And if it helps anyone, then they can go ahead and take it or do whatever the else the want.

HOWEVER --

If you take a highly trained athlete and give them such a shot then it's not going to do crap for them because their O2 capacity is already at the max.

And you can give shots all day long to those poorly trained runners and they'll never have the O2 capacity of someone like Gebreselassie who makes the most of his training, knows what he is doing, and doesn't waste time and effort doing things that don't mean anything.

To break this down in simple terms:

Let's say 100% is the highest you can get your O2 capacity.

Now, mine is already at 99.5 or 99.9 or 100 because I am conditioned for that.

Maybe you can take someone who's O2 capacity is 50%, or 75%, or 85% and give them a few shots and you'll raise it up a bit, but you're not going to get it to 99.9% without training.

I know some of you are going to say "ohhh give it to someone with 97% and you'll raise it to 105% --- but you don't know what you're talking about.

First of all, 100% is the max and you can't go any higher than that.

Second of all, you can reach that max with training, which includes the "right" kind of diet, sleep, and other of the right kinds of habits.

No one can be at their optimum staying up all night getting drunk and wearing yourself out day after day and then complaining about some other athletes being better endowed than you are -- unless you are talking about their habits and mentality, which is certainly true.

Martin,

What was Henry Carr's 200m time, and what was the winning time this weekend in the World Championships.

How many of those 400 milers have trained seriously for the marathon.

There are quite a few marathoners who have bettered the 32x mile ratio, Steve Jones, Carlos Lopes, Joan Benoit, Ingrid Kristiansen, being just a few of them.

And you are certainly not qualified to speak for WADA.

I just checked the very first link on google.com about Henry Carr.

Here it is:

http://www.michtrack.org/HOF/hofcarr.html

Look at the kind of track he was running on, and still ran 20.3, the same as the time last week in the World Championships.

Otis Davis and Karl Kaufman both ran 44.9 for 400 meters in the 1960 Rome Olympics on a torn up cinder train.

They didn't run much faster, on super fast rubberized track, this past week.

If sprint times had improve so much, 5% like you say, : ) ha ha ha ... 5%? ... then why aren't there at least 100 guys breaking 20.3 some 40 years later.

There aren't.

"Message:Taking just one of your points will suffice to prove all the rest of them false"

"All you need to do is look around at lazy drugged up America and you can see how miserably the drugs are working, and yet how much the drug companies are making from the sale of them"

That statement is wrong.

TUNNEL VISION

1. Carl Lewis won gold at the olympics. This druggied up athletes shows "miserably" that drugs are working.

2. Kelli White just won 2 gold medals and tested positive

3. Bernard Lagat just tested positive. He ran 3:26, the second fasted time ever.

4. Jerome Young tested positive - he won gold

5. East Germans set many world records 20 or so years ago. It is now known that most were all druggied from an early age.

Drugs are sold because they work

1. Drug companies sell drugs that work

2. Drugs are tested for medical reason --> not for sports performance (already stated)

3. The drugs are sold then only for medical reasons

4. The FDA would not allow a bad drug to be sold

5. People buy drugs to get well

6. If they did not get well they would not use them

7. Thus drugs are beneficial, have medical purposes and "work"

8. If the drugs did not work sick people would not take them.

There is a parallel here to sports performance

1. Since drugs work people continue to take them

2. Therefore since so many people abuse drugs it must be that it either works for sports performance or appears to work.

Why do drug companies sell drugs?

"Your answer: Because they work"

"FALSE! They sell drugs to make money"

1. Thus drugs dont work? Look up and you will see that drugs do clearly work.

2. Since they clearly work they are sold at a profit

3. Their intentions are irrelevant

4. It does not matter if they want to cure all the diseases among mankind and/or get rich.

5. The fact they provide a good product is the testiment to their credibility.

"They sell drugs to make money"

1. The British provide free medicine

2. Making money is generating a profit.

3. It is a national(gov. runned) healthcare system

4. They dont make money because they dont charge their patients anything.

5. The government takes the bill. Clearly then they are spending money

5. Thus they do not make money, they spend money.

So long "dunes runner" - I would not even think of looking at such a final comment you made. I wont keep giving you feedback either, it's a waste of time for me. I only hope you have seen your mistakes and learn from this.

I suggest you try and learn from this. What you thought of as knowledge is really not.

You live in fairy tale land and watch too many commercials.

"You live in fairy tale land and watch too many commercials."

That comment is only a reflection of YOUR subconscious.

"O2 capacity is already at the max"

1. Natural blood counts range from 38-50 hemoglobin and 13-17 hemocrit

2. An EPO user can have 60 hemoglobin and 19 hemocrit (tour de France athlete(s) in the past have been caught this high)

3. If an athlete is at 100% max of normal the only to go above unnaturally is with EPO.

1. Blood is not the only variable to performance

2. Form, lactic threshold, etc

3. I can have the same RBC count as Haile G if it?s natural

4. Thus if I have 100% max (50) that does not mean I will run as fast as Haile G.

-- Everyone can have the same fuel octane but it?s the engine inside that matters. Haile G has greater capillarization, muscle endurance, form, etc than I do.

Why do you assume "100 guys" could break 20.44 FAT based on a 5% improvement? (And why do you not agree with the 5% figure? Are you incapable of simple algebra? I suspect so.)

In, 26 guys ran faster than 20.34, which probably puts the number of athletes better than 20.44 around 50 or 60.

In the same year, 18 men bettered Ron Clarkes WR of 27:39 set in 1965 (about 40 years ago, your selected time frame)

Now, none but a foole (that is to say, you) would argue that the 10K hasn't "improved significantly" in the last 40 years, but for some reason, fewer athletes have run faster than the 65 world record in the 10K than in the 200.

Pay attention now, 'cause I'm going to make a POINT:

More men run faster than world record set 40 years ago over 200m today than do so in the 10K.

Thus, 200m, as an event, has advanced as much, or more than 10K.

You are wrong - on just about everything.

Martin

"You are wrong - on just about everything."

I will second that.

Okay Martin,

Let's assume your assertions are correct, that improvements over the last 40 years have been greater in the 200 meters then the 10000 meters.

If so -- you have just succeeded in proving my first post.

There are and have been NO improvements in distance times among top runners due to drugs.

It's nice that you both agree with this.

Actually most all people would agree, once they take the time to look logically at the facts.

dunes runner,one of your primary arguments is that drugs don't work. you're reasoning is as follows:

dunes runner wrote:

All you need to do is look around at lazy drugged up America and you can see how miserably the drugs are working, and yet how much the drug companies are making from the sale of them.

wow, how long did it take for you to conduct that study? i mean, all that looking around...jeez. you must be some sort of genius scientist or something

dunes runner wrote:

I just checked the very first link on google.com about Henry Carr.

Here it is:

http://www.michtrack.org/HOF/hofcarr.html

Look at the kind of track he was running on, and still ran 20.3, the same as the time last week in the World Championships.

Otis Davis and Karl Kaufman both ran 44.9 for 400 meters in the 1960 Rome Olympics on a torn up cinder train.

They didn't run much faster, on super fast rubberized track, this past week.

If sprint times had improve so much, 5% like you say, : ) ha ha ha ... 5%? ... then why aren't there at least 100 guys breaking 20.3 some 40 years later.

There aren't.

Don't want to get in the middle of a two man fight here, but a quick fact about the track at this year's worlds - it's considered much "softer" and "mushier" than those used in recent years. This is because a lot of distance guys, like Geb, complained about the rock hard Mondo tracks that favored sprinters, helped the runners achieve great results. That's why some guys actually attempted doubles this time.

That said - it was wet for the 200 final this year, that will affect times. However, none of the guys in the race has the natural ability of Carr. He's always overlooked. The 400 was a bit weak this year.

Overall, sprint times haven't improved all that much. Their are records that are way out there, but a combination of rock hard Mondo, HGH, and roids helped put them there. Most sprinters are still struggling to break 10, break 20, and break 45.

It's far too frustrating arguing with you -- I find the experience similar to that of trying to convince a 2 year old that there are no monsters under the bed.

There isn't a person on this planet with an IQ of more than 80 that would agree with any of your assertions.

Again, I implore you, please find another discussion board - or get a girlfriend.

Martin

Martin wrote:

It's far too frustrating arguing with you -- I find the experience similar to that of trying to convince a 2 year old that there are no monsters under the bed.

There isn't a person on this planet with an IQ of more than 80 that would agree with any of your assertions.

Again, I implore you, please find another discussion board - or get a girlfriend.

Martin

Martin, you really think a woman would be interested in such an illogical clown?

Martin wrote:

WADA says the EPO Urine test has shown no false positives, so that would make the percentage zero. (It has, however, shown false negatives). This was based on an emphrical study of 1152 elite athletes.

Interesting. Do you have a citation for that study? I didn't see it mentioned in the WADA report. I saw only this statement:

"In its normal use, this test, apparently, has never been found to give false positive results."

I think publication of the validation study in a peer-reviewed journal is a requirement for these tests, so I'd very much like to see such a report.

I hate to get off the subject, but with the formula above, I should be able to run a 2:19 marathon. Is this right? Did I do something wrong? I would be happy to run a 2:22. Where does this formula come from?