I'm really just trying to figure out what your point is, I suppose. The argument I see you making is that because no one has shown specifically that EPO improves endurance performance in the way they can show that, I don't know, chlorine bleach can get jelly stains out of your white shirt, we shouldn't attribute current world records and fast performances to EPO use.
If that's your position and we follow it to its conclusion we might as well not worry about EPO because its illegality means we'll never know exactly who used it and what happened and because we can't say definitively that a particular athlete ran a 2:04 marathon with EPO that would have been 2:10 had he not used it. You don't want to make such assertions because they can't be proven yet you seem to be fine asserting that Lance Armstrong or Cathal Lombard could have turned in the performances they did even if they hadn't used EPO which also can't be proven. At least that's how you're coming off to me.
Nick Willis calls TnF a 'complete joke'.
Report Thread
-
-
actually entertaining this fanny , rekrunner.
"blooddoping is the most powerful form of doping ".
MICERA > other epo's > blood doping >= hematocrit raising steroids .
Why me wonders ........oh.....
1.
C.E.R.A as name suggests is the best by ,
just have to look at what bekele done or wariner ......
continous epo receptor as in name means continously
invoking response from epo receptor .
raises hct faster and higher and keeps there for longer with
greater ease as one injection a month ,
especially in people that respond less to these drugs . YES "RESPONCE".
2.
Blood doping is the most complex , dangerous and not well used
older blood cells ,not as much varation in ages of blood cells etc etc
so less of capability compared to previous with same hct .
onl;y a handful used method in 70's
and then maybe similarly not a massive amount of athletes used in 80's
in athletics ,nearly count out them out .
and if respond well to steroid then just as good as blood doping
a simple tablet or injection compared to that
and other benefits of steroids ,nitrogen retention,other recovery pathways
besides higher hct et cetera.
most in 80's used steroids for ease and not great difference
so how can blood doping be the greatest.
yes in select few cases where hit athlete with both like coe
or afew marathoners then again better but rarer. -
"rekrunner, in all events, male and female, track and field, neuromuscular efficiency is the key. There is no drug that can give a person these skill"
I would beg to differ ..........
steroids enhance nervous system function. through various igf-1 pathways .
recover faster , why so popular in sprints which major factor,
if train to close 100 % will overtrain nervous system, ever hear 95 % effort ....
due to not enough rest between training yes overtrain but if have steroids
go read charlie francis speed trap from 80's good dam .....
SO LETS get to the candidate for the best ped in sport ever
for overall various things it can do . YES , IGF-1 lr3 ...............................
at peak cycle this ped will supercharge nervous system
much better than the highest responder to serious steroids
or best for it , be it like nandrolone etc
or if use hgh with steroids was way to do it previously but again a lottery
in how liver would respond to hgh .and at time when couldnt use as much
steroids.
so IGF -1 LR3
IS THE BEST PED TO EVER HIT SPORTS . for overall effects and events
go ask farah ,or select few brits ,eh like 2012 olympics, cycling etc
ask darling jessica ennis , afew sprinters and so on. -
You have absolutely no evidence at all that Bekele, Wariner and Coe were using any of the combinations you claim. Anyone can spout allegations.
You claim these things as if facts. They are not.
You seem to have knowledge of the effects of these drugs but you make yourself look stupid by stating examples. Either provide concrete evidence or else just stop with the unfounded rumours. -
Gets really old wrote:
That's just that Wiggins fool that maintains Ryun used stimulants. Same old schtick for years. Just move on and ignore his asinine comments on the matter.
Same old schtick response... you flame me but make no attempt to deny the fact of massive amphetamine use in that era because it's common knowledge.
Blaming it on me won't make it go away. But it will make you look paranoid and desperate to keep your old-time heroes on their pedestal of presumed innocence.
Anti-doping doesn't work with that approach. Nobody today is presumed innocent, rather everyone is presumed suspect or there wouldn't be testing. Applying a different standard to an era when doping wasn't even illegal is ridiculous. If anything they are more suspect - and that goes for all of them, not just Ryun. -
so obvious athletes mentioned used cera at least
fact very gud ped and their careers all changed at same time after 2008 -
rekrunner wrote:
You misunderstand what I mean by "weak mind". The 1999 Lance, brimming with confidence, still had a "weak mind", because he lacked the confidence to find a way to train and compete without drugs.
If Lance wanted to win he had to compete with PEDs as so many of the other riders in the peleton were using them at the time and the performance enhancement with the PEDs being used was so marked that it could never be oversome by talent and training alone or by having a "strong mind". Nobody finishing on the podium or even the top 10 of the TDF when Lance was riding was not using PEDs. Having a "strong mind" and not accepting using PEDs just meant that you would be riding in the middle of the peleton or "pack fill" as Tyler Hamilton put it. All of the scientists, doctors, and coaches involved in cycling at the top level accepted that the benefits of the PEDs used during Armstrong's era were real and very effective in terms of being able to cycle faster. If you want to deny this, that is your opinion but you are effectively claiming that hundreds of people involved in competing in a single sport were all suffering from some sort of mass hysteria which gave them no physical benefit whatsoever. You really have to shoulder the burden of proof to make such a claim credible. Something that you have not done so far.
rekrunner wrote:
You also assume that Cathal Lombard actually increased his overall training load. He cut his mileage in half.
I never wrote anything about Lombard's changes in training volume. Besides, you can increase your training load through increasing intensity even if you are reducing your volume.
rekrunner wrote:
I'm convinced EPO was a major factor in his improvements, but I just disagree with "the most likely explanation that EPO was the physical driving force". I considered it, but do not consider it "most likely" that EPO "physically" enabled him to make the changes in training.
So, if not EPO, what do you think most likely "physically" enabled him to change his training approach (that resulted in a dramatic improvement in performance)? -
HRE,
Let me clarify one thing here. I'm not doubting (here and now) that EPO can be effective for slower runners, especially if they are poorly trained, but really just looking at athletes who have the potential to move their own national records.
I'm genuinely interested in why people say what they say, and why they believe what they believe.
Wipe your mind clean of all pre-judgement, and ask yourself, why do I believe that EPO works for elite runners?
I'm less interested in the ultimate truth of the belief, as to the arguments and examples as a result of this thought process.
Don't dwell so much on what can or cannot be conclusively proved as caused by EPO (except where something measurable, like race times, can put an upper bound on the realized effectiveness).
I wasn't trying to make a point so much as wanting to see someone positively defend the idea that EPO can work, or has worked, "at the top", without assuming the conclusion.
Renato says it doesn't work for top Kenyan athletes. Whatever you think about that, my race times observation is that it generally hasn't worked for top non-East Africans either, because, based on national and area record times, the number of potential candidates, over several decades, that could have cheated to surpass pre-EPO times, can be counted on two hands, and maybe two feet.
Whatever effect EPO has in studies, on amateur athletes, or BBC reporters, as a general rule, the best times of non-African nations have remained relatively static.
This places some kind of upper limit that says EPO has not worked at a time when there was no risk of getting caught taking it. I find that kind of odd, when we compare it to cycling, we don't find the same parallel.
Let me make an analogy (you might have already seen), and consider a fat-burning weight loss pill.
If I give it to an out of shape 250 pound couch potato, he might lose 75 pounds.
If I give it to a "well-trained" runner of 160 pounds, he might lose 15 pounds.
Now someone like Renato says, I believe this kind of weight loss pill will not work on top-Kenyan athletes who weigh 110 pounds.
Then letslose.com says "what?" Kenyans are humans too -- of course this drug will react on all humans -- Kenyans are no different. Some Kenyans even got caught taking these pills. Who knows what they would have weighed without it -- they've been taking it all along!
This is how I'm thinking of EPO -- it doesn't work at the top well-trained runners because there is very little margin left to improve.
Here's another exercise:
In various articles discussing the problem of who to give Lance's yellow jerseys to, there were all kinds of analysis that most of the cyclists themselves were doped. They were hard pressed to find anyone in the top 10 finishers who weren't already implicated in some kind of scandal.
Now look at any running event 1500m and above, men or women. Select the top-100 performances of all time. Tell me, as a percentage, how many of these performances have been linked to EPO, or any drug, for that matter, and compare that to cycling during the "EPO-era". -
rekrunner wrote:
Whatever effect EPO has in studies, on amateur athletes, or BBC reporters, as a general rule, the best times of non-African nations have remained relatively static.
This is correct, but I already pointed out the problems with that logic yesterday, to which you didn't react.
Different times, different doping methods.
E.g., up to the 80s, practically free doping for all. Even when the tests started, cover ups happened more often than not. The 90s, early 00s, you had EPO, but doping with steroids and amphetamines was then somewhat restricted (ignoring the bribing/cover ups for simplicity). Then one could detect EPO (but not microdosing), and CERA came onto the market. Now there is a test for CERA, but now we have strong rumors for again something new and possibly more effective.
One thing is clear: EPO is not the wonder drug for running that it seems to be for cycling. But even there, Armstrong's group used a huge cocktail; in fact, he was caught in 99 for using corticosteroids. So we don't really know how much EPO contributed. -
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
the best times of non-African nations have remained relatively static.
Different times, different doping methods.
E.g., up to the 80s, practically free doping for all. Even when the tests started, cover ups happened more often than not. The 90s, early 00s, you had EPO, but doping with steroids and amphetamines was then somewhat restricted
And the Africans were not the big thing before the 90's. You had a few individual stars, Keino, Bikila, Yifter, Ngugi, Rono, Aouita, Bayi, but not a big crowd, and very few women.They didn't even dominate the steeplechase yet. If there had been more back then, some might have been just as fast as the best 90's and 00's Africans. -
Completely agree, particularly the comment about running not the same as cycling. But if we accept all of your assumptions, then EPO is not the most powerful, but simply as powerful as the other methods.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Whatever effect EPO has in studies, on amateur athletes, or BBC reporters, as a general rule, the best times of non-African nations have remained relatively static.
This is correct, but I already pointed out the problems with that logic yesterday, to which you didn't react.
Different times, different doping methods.
E.g., up to the 80s, practically free doping for all. Even when the tests started, cover ups happened more often than not. The 90s, early 00s, you had EPO, but doping with steroids and amphetamines was then somewhat restricted (ignoring the bribing/cover ups for simplicity). Then one could detect EPO (but not microdosing), and CERA came onto the market. Now there is a test for CERA, but now we have strong rumors for again something new and possibly more effective.
One thing is clear: EPO is not the wonder drug for running that it seems to be for cycling. But even there, Armstrong's group used a huge cocktail; in fact, he was caught in 99 for using corticosteroids. So we don't really know how much EPO contributed. -
Whatever the reason, Lance was mentally defeated in 1995, and never recovered from that until (maybe) his appearance on Oprah.
I didn't make any claim (here) that EPO was not effective for cycling, only for elite running -- no burden of proof required for a claim I did not make.
But I will note here that EPO was one of many drugs and methods used in cycling. I don't assume that steroids, testosterone, and HGH are completely ineffective, which muddies evaluating the contribution of EPO.
I wrote about Lombard's training volume changes -- to show that maybe EPO wasn't necessarily required. If Lombard increased intensity, while decreasing mileage (he reportedly cut it in half), it's not clear that the overall training load increased to the point where EPO was necessary to enable the new load. Again, I considered it, but consider it unlikely. I could change my mind with more details about the training.
As I said, twice, EPO removed the "mental" barriers. The change in training was obviously an improvement. Maybe EPO accelerated the process. Giving EPO credit for a 2:30 to 3:00 improvement in 10K is (for me) ridiculous. For this "mediocre" runner, I guess 40-45 seconds is a better expected value. But in the end, Lombard is not the record-setting elite runner I'm talking about, because even the post-EPO Lombard barely made the top-500 all time, and he did not even set European records.
preciously jaded wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You misunderstand what I mean by "weak mind". The 1999 Lance, brimming with confidence, still had a "weak mind", because he lacked the confidence to find a way to train and compete without drugs.
If Lance wanted to win he had to compete with PEDs as so many of the other riders in the peleton were using them at the time and the performance enhancement with the PEDs being used was so marked that it could never be oversome by talent and training alone or by having a "strong mind". Nobody finishing on the podium or even the top 10 of the TDF when Lance was riding was not using PEDs. Having a "strong mind" and not accepting using PEDs just meant that you would be riding in the middle of the peleton or "pack fill" as Tyler Hamilton put it. All of the scientists, doctors, and coaches involved in cycling at the top level accepted that the benefits of the PEDs used during Armstrong's era were real and very effective in terms of being able to cycle faster. If you want to deny this, that is your opinion but you are effectively claiming that hundreds of people involved in competing in a single sport were all suffering from some sort of mass hysteria which gave them no physical benefit whatsoever. You really have to shoulder the burden of proof to make such a claim credible. Something that you have not done so far.
rekrunner wrote:
You also assume that Cathal Lombard actually increased his overall training load. He cut his mileage in half.
I never wrote anything about Lombard's changes in training volume. Besides, you can increase your training load through increasing intensity even if you are reducing your volume.
rekrunner wrote:
I'm convinced EPO was a major factor in his improvements, but I just disagree with "the most likely explanation that EPO was the physical driving force". I considered it, but do not consider it "most likely" that EPO "physically" enabled him to make the changes in training.
So, if not EPO, what do you think most likely "physically" enabled him to change his training approach (that resulted in a dramatic improvement in performance)? -
I always found Renato's comments about EPO not working on fast Kenyans to be dubious and self serving. As far as I've been able to tell, he's the only person who has ever suggested that. I asked a couple people I know with Ph.Ds in exercise physiology about that claim and both thought it was ridiculous.
A while ago "Marathon and Beyond" asked me to reply to a reader's question about how fast humans ultimately could run a marathon and my answer was that I thought we already had passed that point if you mean "unaided" humans. I based that on looking at the progression of the men's marathon record in my lifetime which had dropped 16 or 17 minutes, depending on your take on the accuracy of Clayton's course in Belgium, from 1950 to 1970 and only a minute and half or two minutes, again depending on the Antwerp course, from 1970 to 1990 despite the vastly increased popularity and affluence of the event which was drawing runners to the event who in the past would have stayed on the track and making it possible to have better "quality" fields pretty commonly than was generally possible in the previous two decades.
That's what you'd expect as an ultimate is approached. Then along came EPO in the 80s and by 2010 the record had dropped twice as much in those twenty years than it had done in the previous twenty. Am I saying that EPO was the only reason for the big drop? Not at all but it would be foolish to think it hasn't played a role.
The assessments I've read of EPO's effect say it can improve performances by 3 to 10 percent. If true, you're obviously going to get bigger drops if you give it to 3:10 types than to 2:10 types just as you'll see a 310 pound person drop more pounds after taking a weight loss pill than a 110 pound person would. But losing weight and running fast are not the same things so there's no current reason to believe that someone capable of running a 2:05 marathon without EPO would not be able to run 2:04:30 with it. The idea that at some point you're too fit for it to help is hypothetical whereas there is a point where you can look at really thin people and say that they simply have no more fat to lose.
Add to that the complete stagnation of men's world records in the years since a test for EPO was discovered which have inhibited but not stopped EPO use,, the huge amounts of money being paid in bribes to make sure athletes using it can continue to compete while doing so and comments made by friends of mine who have run and coached at the international level and it's hard for me not to think that EPO isn't a significant reason why we have the performances we have today. -
Correction:
\"...hard for me not to think that EPO IS (not isn\'t) a significant reason... -
When was it discovered EPO was used in the 80's?
I'm pretty sure synthetic EPO wasn't being used as a ped in sport until the early 90's, starting with cycling and X country skiing.
Wouldn't have thought it used in T&F until 93/94! -
"Renato says it doesn't work for top Kenyan athletes. Whatever you think about that, my race times observation is that it generally hasn't worked for top non africans. "
rekrunner sorry renato 2.0
is either a teenager or renato canovo in disguise
such utter rubbish .
also seem to have a problem with lance for some reason
do you work with wada maybe .........
Great you realise cant compare cycling with long distance .
lance even said himself that he could of doped alot alot more.
he could never go over 50 % hct during most of his time
unlike pantani or riise before hand.
"which times in top 100 times of 1500m or longer of mens are doped "
would say the majority especially kiprop .as i know thats who thinking of.
renato get off the computador and go out there and train your
doped up athletes before they ban you too. -
rekrunner wrote:
Whatever the reason, Lance was mentally defeated in 1995, and never recovered from that until (maybe) his appearance on Oprah.
I didn't make any claim (here) that EPO was not effective for cycling, only for elite running -- no burden of proof required for a claim I did not make.
But I will note here that EPO was one of many drugs and methods used in cycling. I don't assume that steroids, testosterone, and HGH are completely ineffective, which muddies evaluating the contribution of EPO.
I wrote about Lombard's training volume changes -- to show that maybe EPO wasn't necessarily required. If Lombard increased intensity, while decreasing mileage (he reportedly cut it in half), it's not clear that the overall training load increased to the point where EPO was necessary to enable the new load. Again, I considered it, but consider it unlikely. I could change my mind with more details about the training.
As I said, twice, EPO removed the "mental" barriers. The change in training was obviously an improvement. Maybe EPO accelerated the process. Giving EPO credit for a 2:30 to 3:00 improvement in 10K is (for me) ridiculous. For this "mediocre" runner, I guess 40-45 seconds is a better expected value. But in the end, Lombard is not the record-setting elite runner I'm talking about, because even the post-EPO Lombard barely made the top-500 all time, and he did not even set European records.
So from what I understand you are saying:
That for the mentally weak Armstrong (and by default the rest of the mentally weak top riders in the peleton in the 1990s) EPO may have worked regarding the performance improvements (note the speed increases in the TdF peleton in the 1990s when EPO was introduced, the other PEDs you mention were all used prior to the 1990s).
That for the also mentally weak Lombard (who was breaking national records and still improving when he got caught), EPO may have been a placebo effect in its contribution to the performance improvements (29'30/30' 10k to 27'30 10k over 2 years).
That for a runner who is 2% or 3% faster than Lombard (who maybe mentally weak or mentally strong who knows?) EPO may not work.
I do not see any consistency in your reasoning but you are of course entitled to your opinion and I believe that you are being sincere. -
Mr. Obvious wrote:Actually it is well known that the USOC systematically covered up doping prior to the 1984 Olympics by a large number of athletes across sports
utter drivel
offer
Reportedly that included at least 34 Track and field athletes
sh!!t !!!
coe won gold there !!!
he trained in USA before
his name there ???
offer all names
I do not know that the specific names have ever been released. USATF (it was actually TAC then) officials denied any knowledge
then you offer
drivel
This is not about ephedrine in the 1988 positives that went unpunished, that is a totally separate episode
drivel
i am interested in some alleged +ve's
I do not expect Ventolin to admit he is wrong
when occurs
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2009-08-03-1984-testing_N.htm
eh ???
that was 6y ago
where are all the "banned" athletes from this nonsense allegation ???
names ??? -
Deanouk wrote:Thanks for that Mr. Obvious. I'm glad you posted that as I often can't be bothered to respond to most of the nonsense that man writes. It would be a full time job.
I also saw on a recent documentary, I think the 9.79 one, that almost all the samples taken on the last day of T&F finals disappeared, and no one knows why!?
strange how often both your drivels so closely follow each other ???
it woud be very interesting to see the IPs... -
HRE wrote:
I always found Renato's comments about EPO not working on fast Kenyans to be dubious and self serving. As far as I've been able to tell, he's the only person who has ever suggested that. I asked a couple people I know with Ph.Ds in exercise physiology about that claim and both thought it was ridiculous.
No, he's not the only person who has ever suggested that. No doubt by what we know now of what has been going on in Kenya while he was there, Renato is an egregious doping coach, but on this one issue, the scientific literature backs him up. There does not appear to be evidence that EPO works on elite (i.e., world class) athletes, although it does seem to work on lower level athletes:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.12034/full
Even Marion Jones was taking the stuff.
