Maybe. That article is pretty much saying "We don't know. we haven't studied the people we need to study to know for sure." They could do something with their print size though. And as I recall, Renato always claimed that cycling an running were not the same in terms of EPO's effect so he really still seems to be the only person suggesting it won't work on elite Kenyans.
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.
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.
.
Progressions do not have to be constant and small. Statistics is not proof. There are many possible explanations with marathon progression that have nothing to do with EPO that are NOT foolish. Using statistics as proof is what is actually foolish.
- more marathon/half marathon prize money now vs then
- better runners attemtping the marathon. In the 80s, there was not a lot of 26-27:30 guys chasing marathon world records.
- guys moving to the marathon at 18 instead of older/downhill ages
All three of these are legitimate poible explanations for better marathon times. Has nothing to do with drugs.
HRE,I would ask your PhD friends the basis for their opinions.The problem with trending marathon times is that the data is too sparse, and too many variables exist to be able to reliably compare marathons. The best runners may never actually produce their best potential. Geb made time-trialing marathons popular in a way I think was not done in the past. (Nor ever by the women, except for one.)Speaking about the marathon, I'm not even convinced EPO could play any role:- marathon pace is not VO2max intensity- marathons need more fat burning- marathons need better economy at MPSomeone would need to explain the mechanism where EPO brings any advantage.Be careful with percentages, as they are unitless, and meaningless unless you include the measure. Improvements in Power, or Time to Exhaustion, or Race Times, will give very different ranges.
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.
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.
To be honest, I don't understand your English, and from what I do understand, I can't be bothered to make any effort to decipher your posts, let alone reply.
aduck2022 wrote:
"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.
I considered all the things you mention, agree they are factors in the improvements, and still think today's times are fishy and EPO induced to some extent. And the presence of big money is another main reason I believe there is big time cheating involved.
That's pretty much it. I'm happy if you can point out any inconsistencies in my reasoning.I think there is a better case for the timing of EPO, and the near universal increase in peloton speed, but, as I said before, we don't see the same patterns of universal improvement in running. Outside of East Africans, we have to look hard for possible candidates, and feature the finding Cathal Lombard (who rose to the level of 1972 David Bedford).I see Lombard as a 27:30 runner who was getting his training wrong, not as a 30:00 runner who tapped into the power of EPO to reach a level beyond his capability. That's why he responded so well to the significant training changes. One of us is right, or maybe both of us in part.The runner who is 2-3% faster is not likely to be faster with a wrong training, or a lack of confidence in his ability. But if so, he would also respond to improved training, accompanied with EPO. If not, there is simply less room for improvement, compared to Lombard.
Preciously Jaded wrote:
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.
rekrunner wrote:
Speaking about the marathon, I'm not even convinced EPO could play any role:
- marathon pace is not VO2max intensity
- marathons need more fat burning
- marathons need better economy at MP
Five years ago, I would have fully agreed with you. There was no jump whatsoever in the men's marathon during the EPO high time, and I can't recall any marathon star, female or male, being caught with EPO by then.
Well, now we have Jeptoo; and every year that passes without any clean Caucasian coming closer to Paula's achievements make her stand out even more (despite all the new money in there!). And then we have learnt about her repeated suspicious blood values, explainable with EPO doping (or for example with a 25% dehydration), and a IAAF president, who was long time VP under a doper protecting president, saying that there won't be a follow-up because he knows she is clean.
So... now I am skeptical but not convinced. Certainly the 1500 - 10000 m were more suspicious during the EPO high time as a whole.
None of these circumstances address what for me, is the lack of any mechanism that EPO addresses these important non-aerobic factors that are known to limit marathon performances.After all, if EPO works so well for the marathon, why can't other women use it and match Paula's times? The men, presumably forced to choose the less effective micro-dosing, brought their record down by a Lombard-esque improvement of 2:30 in the same timeframe. Surely other 2:18 women runners could do the same. The fact that Rita Jeptoo, and Lilya Shobukhova, and every women since 2003 cannot match Paula's marathon time, fits in well with a claim that says that EPO cannot work for elites at the top, for Kenyans and non-Kenyans men and women alike.To explain Paula as an outlier, we need to look at other factors unique to her and her performance, rather than EPO, a global factor. Or alternatively, why Paula is the only female high-responder to EPO in the history of women's marathon. Or is she the only "truly clean" 2:18 runner in a history of women 2:20 or slower? No one really seems prepared to do that, preferring to jump on the "EPO works" bandwagon to accuse everyone who succeeds as having taken EPO to do it.I'm afraid Rita Jeptoo was poorly advised, to take EPO, assuming a great risk for something that can bring no return.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Speaking about the marathon, I'm not even convinced EPO could play any role:
- marathon pace is not VO2max intensity
- marathons need more fat burning
- marathons need better economy at MP
Five years ago, I would have fully agreed with you. There was no jump whatsoever in the men's marathon during the EPO high time, and I can't recall any marathon star, female or male, being caught with EPO by then.
Well, now we have Jeptoo; and every year that passes without any clean Caucasian coming closer to Paula's achievements make her stand out even more (despite all the new money in there!). And then we have learnt about her repeated suspicious blood values, explainable with EPO doping (or for example with a 25% dehydration), and a IAAF president, who was long time VP under a doper protecting president, saying that there won't be a follow-up because he knows she is clean.
So... now I am skeptical but not convinced. Certainly the 1500 - 10000 m were more suspicious during the EPO high time as a whole.
Lots of racewalk champions busted for EPO
How does that fit in with the theory that it doesn't work for marathon?
It fits outside.Walking is not running -- different energy, recovery, and economy requirements.Being busted for EPO just means that someone believed it would work, not that it really works.
coach.. wrote:
Lots of racewalk champions busted for EPO
How does that fit in with the theory that it doesn't work for marathon?