Who would in an 800m at top fitness - Coe or Kipketer?

Kipketer was also on drugs

rabbit kipketer

championship coe

kipketererer wrote:

Kipketer was also on drugs

What makes you think Coe wasn't, considering there was no testing at the time?

Intergalactic wrote:

kipketererer wrote:

Kipketer was also on drugs

What makes you think Coe wasn't, considering there was no testing at the time?

There was no testing for EPO in the 90s, when WK was in 1:41 form or close to it. Coe may well have been on drugs, but EPO changed everything for events from 400 on up, and Coe had effectively retired by the time EPO came along.

Blood doping can theoretically jack hematocrit as high as EPO, but as practiced in the 70s and 80s, it didn't. EPO saw a dramatic increase in average Tour De France speeds in the 90s, for example, and riders had certainly blood doped previously.

The point being, of course, comparing Coe to WK is a bit like comparing the great 100/200 men of today to Carl Lewis, who never ran faster than 9.86/19.75.

without rabbits it'd have to be coe who wins. wk cant kick with the same speed.

but coe only won 1 major championship unrabbited race. then again kipketer didn't win either.(olympics)

800 fan wrote:

Blood doping can theoretically jack hematocrit as high as EPO, but as practiced in the 70s and 80s, it didn't. EPO saw a dramatic increase in average Tour De France speeds in the 90s, for example, and riders had certainly blood doped previously

epo only eventually does what blood-doping immediately does

if epo is more effective than blood-doping, you will have to come out with a physiological explanation why that is

if not, then it simply comes down to :

- epo is easier to do - just a small injection compared to the laborious effort of having to go to the effort of finding large blood bags & then getting a doc to infuse them & cover with diuretic to prevent heart failure - much easier to dispose of an epo syringe than the trail of getting blood bags, using them & then disposing of them - you can buy epo over the web, you can't for blood bags

- possible less doping pre-epo days because of difficulty of above & less money in the sport until last few years, when larger prize-money encourages cheating

ventolin wrote:

800 fan wrote:

Blood doping can theoretically jack hematocrit as high as EPO, but as practiced in the 70s and 80s, it didn't. EPO saw a dramatic increase in average Tour De France speeds in the 90s, for example, and riders had certainly blood doped previously

epo only eventually does what blood-doping immediately does

if epo is more effective than blood-doping, you will have to come out with a physiological explanation why that is

I'm sorry, I'm too stupid to read yet again. I see the post I replied to already answered that question.

no it didn't

ventolin original wrote:

no it didn't

Hint: It's in the second "paragraph" of the post by "800 fan."

Makes sense, too. Ask Greg Lemond about the rise of Indurain.

not that slow wrote:

without rabbits it'd have to be coe who wins. wk cant kick with the same speed.

Is this true? Kipketer had some very impressive last 200s and 100s.

one reason blood-doping ( mostly from '70s/'80s ) is considered inferior to modern epo is that the calibre of athletes is intrinsically better now than then

back in ole days, viren is most notorious blood-doper & i'd hazard a guess he was intrinsically a ~ 13'25 /28'00 guy before doping & in '72 was capable of ~ <13'15 / <27'30, so maybe 15s+ off 5k & 30s+ off 10k with transfusions ( remember ~ 13'25 / 28'00 was mostly calibre of viren's runs before the "magic" transformations in og )

if he'd taken epo back in those days, i doubt he wouda got any bigger improvements than with blood-doping - it just seems epo is more effective, but you are not comparing "like with like" athletes

nowdays, i have little doubt you have intrinsic 13'00 / 27'00 guys - they use epo because it's easier to obtain/more convenient, etc than transfusions - use either method & i have little hesitation in believeing they coud go <12'50 / <26'40

i doubt controlled trials on modern athletes comparing epo/transfusions woud show any significant difference ( but of course it woud be unethical to do such a trial )

ventolin original wrote:

one reason blood-doping ( mostly from '70s/'80s ) is considered inferior to modern epo is that the calibre of athletes is intrinsically better now than then

The caliber of the athlete, no

The caliber of atheletes doping, yes--the Ethiopian stars of the 1970s and 80s were not by and large on drugs

But the biggie, of course is simply that

If you look at the blood doping protocols for that time period,

which were fairly standard,

and published

they simply did not use very much blood in transfusions--the hematocrit gained was 1/3 or so of what athletes OFTEN gained, and gain, via EPO use

moreover, EPO, Repoxygen, etc.---these are just the current tips of the iceberg.

Nobody used HGH+insulin in 1975. Nobody used IGF1-LR3 in 1980.

i hope you are not claiming the athletes of the '70's/'80s were of same intrinsic calibre as current day ones ?!

i don't recall any 12'50 / 26'40 guys in '70s/'80s & i'm damn sure we've had clean guys run that nowdays

if they only used tranfusions to push hematocrit up by a 1/3 to that of epo, then that's their problem for being over-cautious ( that's why you have a diuretic with it - up the furosemide from 40mg to 80mg & add another bag ) & even more remarkable how a viren-type coud knock so much off his times with "small" transfusions - what woud he have run if his doc had pushed the level upto 50 ?

partial credit wrote:

If you look at the blood doping protocols for that time period,

which were fairly standard,

and published

they simply did not use very much blood in transfusions--the hematocrit gained was 1/3 or so of what athletes OFTEN gained, and gain, via EPO use.

A good analogy:

A sport where all drugs are legal---bodybuilding.

From the 1960s-early 1990s, the staple drugs remained the same--anabolic steroids. A tiny bit of HGH/clen towards the end of that period, but not much.

So, almost all the drugs bodybuilders used in 1990 were available in 1970.

The training didn't change significantly.

What happened?

Bodybuilders engaged in a drug version of the Arms Race.

And gradually, they got larger. And larger. 400mgs/week became 4 grams/week. And the change is very clear:

Same drugs.

But 400mgs of test+deca/week creates a very different physique than 4 grams test+deca/week.

ventolin original wrote:

i hope you are not claiming the athletes of the '70's/'80s were of same intrinsic calibre as current day ones ?!

Of course.

Give Bob Hayes or Carl Lewis the crap Mo Green was on, train him right and put him on a mondo track, and they'd destroy all modern 100 sprinters

Give Tommie Smith modern drugs and training and he'd beat Wariner.

Give Henry Rono modern technology and he'd be the first under 7:50 in the steeple.

And so on.

It works in reverse, too.

Give Felix the crap Flo-Jo was on and she could break Koch's 400 record.

you are using 1 or 2 examples at the most - & "legendary" guys

sure 1 or 2 guys from the past/event coud hold their own against modern guys, but the overall depth 30+ y ago doesn't match today - top ten fields intrinsically weaker then

hayes may have gone 9.80 current day ( but his initial 60m wasn't good enough ), but you have safa/bolt who have gone 9.7 & i'm sure clean

smith may have gone 19.6 / high-43, but we already have had 4 guys go 19.6 in past coupla years ( bolt to join them in june ) & i bet they are all clean

however, in distance running , look at the '60s & only ryun/snell & maybe keino couda gone 1'42 &/or <3'30 level, but no one of 13'00 / 27'00 calibre ( ron clarke closest, but i doubt he wouda gone quicker than ~ 13'05/27'10 on a modern track )

ventolin original wrote:

you are using 1 or 2 examples at the most - & "legendary" guys

sure 1 or 2 guys from the past/event coud hold their own against modern guys, but the overall depth 30+ y ago doesn't match today - top ten fields intrinsically weaker then

You seriously do crack me up. You are so illogical you don't even see your own illogic.

Top guys of yesterday, you claim, are "intrinsically weaker"

than those of today--because they are _slower_.

Why are they slower, then?

Could it possibly be that the reason top male sprinters of today are faster is the same reason female sprinters of today are slower?

I'm guessing you'll have trouble with this one, too. So I'll help:

Let me see if I get it...depth was much greater in female sprinting in the 80s than today, but poorer in distance running...but better in the 80s in the throwing events...yawn...

you crack me up wrote:

Top guys of yesterday, you claim, are "intrinsically weaker"

than those of today--because they are _slower_.

Why are they slower, then?

how about for male sprinters that each generation is about 1" taller & 10 pounds+ heavier than previous one - look up average size of '04 field in 100m & that of '72

how about for distance runners we have had an explosion of africans in last generation who have left non-africans for dead - look up how many non-africans have gone quicker for 5k/10k than moorcroft & mamede did 25y ago

how about for women sprinters you remove the state-sponsored doped up east europeans of '70s & '80s & compare how the remaining fields time compares with today