Even if Paula doped, how is her WR so much faster than the next best?

I guess I am pretty green to the drug cheat thing. I always knew Armstrong was dirty, but I still don't get it. I ran sub 2:20 and never dreamed of taking anything to enhance performance. That defeats the whole reason to run fast imho. Of course I never accuse someone of it lightly either.

a ferrari versus a datsun wrote:

rubbish and nonsense

read Tyler's book. "The secret race".

You obviously are not very bright. Please attempt to read what I wrote with understanding. I never implied one way or another whether Lance had an advantage over his competitors, although he OBVIOUSLY did, as if he had no advantage he would not have won, you idiot. I never stated what the source of that advantage was and your ostensibly erroneous inference means that I WILL take to you the woodshed you little monkey.

Maybe the incentive to dope for elite athletes such as PR is making a lot of money... Radcliffe poscketed millions in appearance fees, prize money and bonuses (Nike)....This also got her a pretty lucrative job at the BBC!That's what doping is all about!

AllAM1978 wrote:

I guess I am pretty green to the drug cheat thing. I always knew Armstrong was dirty, but I still don't get it. I ran sub 2:20 and never dreamed of taking anything to enhance performance. That defeats the whole reason to run fast imho. Of course I never accuse someone of it lightly either.

She's the female Lance Armstrong. Manipulating others ("EPO cheats out") and pointing the finger at them. Her personality of being really defensive about drug users is telling. Guilty people tend to act in this manner, trying to throw out a distraction and exuding a persona of, "how dare you call me a cheater!"

pathetic delusional troll wrote:

Truly pathetic once again, Rekrunner!

Good point, let's bring it back. My understanding is that EPO became - within limits - detectable around 2004, and hence athletes had to cut back its usage. It's not just Paula whose performance dropped thereafter, it's also the lack of world records after 2004 in the men's 400 and 1500 and 5000, and to some extent in the 800 (10+ years without WR until Rudisha came along). Also, Ndereba ran 2:18 in 2001, on par with the current Kenyan stars. Strange, that no Kenyan lady really outperformed her in the last 14 years despite more competition, more money, better training and knowledge, unless you consider the differences in EPO doping. Similarly, the TdF got slower 10 - 12 years ago (at least until Froome came along). Those are quite strong arguments that EPO matters in running as well. So, Paula then was the best in 2003 (someone had to be, right?), with Ndereba second best. We can assume that her 2:15 might have been a high 2:16 on a loop course. She was then 1 - 2 minutes faster than the current stars, which may be explained by more EPO for her in line with the better testing now. Blood transfusions may also be not that easy to hide anymore, for we can better detect traces of the blood bags. If you take EPO out of the equation, then she'd be even a more extreme outlier. If you consider others to have doped, but not her, then she'd be even more extreme than extreme. Possible, of course, but less likely. I don't believe into conspiracy theories (that she was "allowed" to use more than others, e.g. steroids), but I know that that comes up once in a while too. So I go with EPO giving a significant advantage, and that she was the best runner during the EPO times. That theory then also works with El G and others, not just her.

rekrunner wrote:

And to bring it back around to the "subject" of this thread, doping was assumed so we don't need to "go there" here -- hardcore EPO/blood-doping before, and softcore EPO micro-dosing/blood-doping after.

We should address things like:

- how can EPO be a reasonable assumption that rationalizes the extreme achievement when there is no precedent before, and no confirmation since, in the women's marathon? If EPO is so effective, so widely available, and so undetectable, it shouldn't lead to one extreme outlier, but (like the pattern in cycling) its effect should be repeatable, and observed across the board.

Seems to me the answer is a set of factors unique to Paula that exclude all competitors before or since. I don't imagine EPO/blood-doping in that set.

It must be tough to be a paid athlete or cyclist and to stay clean.

You suspect or know that your peers are doping.

And you suspect or know that the authorities don't care too much.

And you realise that if you don't follow suit then you will potentially miss out on:

- prize money

- sponsorship

- high finishes

- peer 'respect'

I don't think athletes start out wanting to cheat. They just discover that it's part of elite performance culture.

When the world's top sportswear manufacturer happily sponsors drugs cheats, you know doping isn't all *that* bad, right.

Odd you agree to bring it back, but still struggle for ways to say that doping can still explain it all. The assumption is that everyone is doping, but you suggest she could do it more in 2003 than afterwards, and that she was better than others before 2003.The men seem to suffer no such hindrance after 2003. On the contrary, 26 men have run faster than Paul Tergat's marathon world record in Sep. 2003. Using your model, 26 men, hiding their EPO usage, crushed Paul Tergat, who was able to hardcore use EPO. Was his 2:04:55 performance clean? Is 2:04:55 weak? For comparison, only 3 women have run faster than 2nd best Catherine Ndereba (counting Shobukhova), and only 15 women have run faster than 3rd best Naoko Takahashi 2:19:46 in 2001 (only 2 out of 15 of them linked to EPO).The value of EPO is supposed to be more red blood cells. While it was easy to beat direct EPO detection, something should still show up in blood values (high Hgb, high RET during, or low RET after), especially if Paula was using more EPO (than for example in 2005). The IAAF started collecting blood from Paula in July 2001, yet her first "suspicious" value postdates all her marathon bests. (If she had another suspicious value, surely the Times would have reported it too).Cycling is not running, so that part is a non-argument. In any case, we recently saw Tyler Hamilton say that even in cycling, EPO didn't make you faster absolutely, but made you less slow in the third week -- something that doesn't factor in the marathon. EPO wouldn't help one day trials.It seems farfetched to me to argue that EPO can be the best explanation, yet only one women in history was able to figure it out and benefit extremely (and you are still 99.99% certain that this is the best explanation of the extreme performance, despite the lack of precedent or confirmation or demonstrated repeatability).A better model is that:- EPO has negligible impact for distance running (because the limits to performance, especially the marathon, are not connected to oxygen)- the faster times are a function of the talent and training of the individuals, running in the right conditions at the right time (or alternatively, only a couple handful of individuals are high responders, able to take EPO, in doses that matter. Therefore most athletes didn't take EPO, or EPO is generally not effective.)- the women lack depth and rivalry, leading to tactical races, with little incentive (or ability to pace) a time trial to a world record

It is as simple (or complex) as this:

- one of the greatest natural talents distance running has ever seen

- very strong long distance predisposition (outlayer - top 1%)

- body designed nearly perfectly for marathon running

- superior training structure for her & super training environment

- focused on the event she had the greatest predisposition for

- excellent conditions (course and weather)

- top notch male pacers and very disciplined pacing

Paul Radcliffe was a perfect storm for marathon running

Good morning rekrunner. I'm not sure where you see me struggling, and it's not just "one women in history was able to figure it out and benefit extremely", I also mentioned Ndereba and the other running competitions from 400 and up, and you came up with Takahashi. That amounts to quite a few examples. You probably looked into the last two pages of the EPO mid-distance thread, where tons of data are presented, including from the various European countries. Quite convincingly so, I presume. Also, I never mentioned that I'm 99.99% sure that EPO is the explanation for Paula's outlier performance (though I am that certain that she doped). You are of course correct with the differences between the men's and the women's marathon. The EPO model works well, if one accepts a race and gender specific effect as suggested by the data. That is, EPO helps significantly in the men's 400 - 5000 (10000 is debatable), and basically in all women's distances. For example, it is well known that women generally have smaller hgb/hct concentrations by nature. Alternatively we might have to look into steroids that also help women more than men. You already seem to have pointed towards that with your Junxia PED comment (who performed her best during the beginning of the EPO times). Assumptions: (1) we are now able to detect steroid (or other PED) use better, and (2) women used steroids in the past more than now, and (3) steroids help women (more than men) in their races. If those three are correct, then we have a global argument as to why several - not just Paula's - women's world records are so much older than the men's. So, sorted possible answers for the thread question by probability (a) most likely) imho: a) EPO and extreme outlierb) other PEDS and extreme outlierc) EPO doesn't help and extremely extreme outlierd) doping does help but she was clean and an outrageously extremely extreme outlierAbout the blood values. Yes we have only seen three from Paula with off scores above the 1/1000 threshold, and they are likely the only ones, but consider that unfortunately nobody cares about the 1/500 threshold.

cleans wrote:

It must be tough to be a paid athlete or cyclist and to stay clean.

You suspect or know that your peers are doping.

And you suspect or know that the authorities don't care too much.

And you realise that if you don't follow suit then you will potentially miss out on:

- prize money

- sponsorship

- high finishes

- peer 'respect'

I don't think athletes start out wanting to cheat. They just discover that it's part of elite performance culture.

When the world's top sportswear manufacturer happily sponsors drugs cheats, you know doping isn't all *that* bad, right.

^This. I am not judging.

And some stars (Ramzi, Jeptoo, Armstrong) went a bit too far, and got caught (after winning of course), while others were lucky that they competed in safer times.

and yet they never fixed her poor form

Also: Even if you run clean, many will assume you are dirty anyway, especially your dirty opponents. It is pretty much a losing situation unless drug testing and enforcement are extermely effective (which we now know are not).It's like you are cruising down the freeway at the legal limit, and getting passed by most of the other cars going ten miles/hour over the limit. At some point you will tend to say "Fugget!" and step on the gas.

casual obsever wrote:

cleans wrote:

It must be tough to be a paid athlete or cyclist and to stay clean.

You suspect or know that your peers are doping.

And you suspect or know that the authorities don't care too much.

And you realise that if you don't follow suit then you will potentially miss out on:

- prize money

- sponsorship

- high finishes

- peer 'respect'

I don't think athletes start out wanting to cheat. They just discover that it's part of elite performance culture.

When the world's top sportswear manufacturer happily sponsors drugs cheats, you know doping isn't all *that* bad, right.

^This. I am not judging.

And some stars (Ramzi, Jeptoo, Armstrong) went a bit too far, and got caught (after winning of course), while others were lucky that they competed in safer times.

what i never understood wrote:

and yet they never fixed her poor form

If they had, maybe she could have run 2:25.

Good morning,The question in the subject line is how Paula is so much faster, and in different posts you say:- Paula "was the best runner during EPO times"- for the men, you talked about the "best distance runners some 12 - 15 years ago" and "Now the best seem to skip the track"I guess the nature of the question was to ignore EPO for a moment (since everyone could take it undetected) and talk about other potential factors, unless it is because she took more, or more effectively. Where I see you struggling is arguing how EPO, and evolution in detection, might still be interpreted to help explain the women's times, now accepting a "gender effect" (would you agree that EPO doesn't work for men in the marathon?) to explain the men's data. As part of your "strong argument" that EPO matters in running, you include unrelated men's middle distance events, up to 5K, and the TdF. These cannot be a strong argument for the women's marathon. In the same post, you say Paula "was the best", and also suggest that it "might be explained by more EPO for her".Individual talent seems to be a necessary part of the answer. EPO seems less significant, if not completely optional/superfluous.I'm not sure exactly which data you mean, but from the data I saw, it seems, at best, (assuming EPO was the cause) that EPO was a small factor, if at all, in Europe. And by comparison, the Europeans are still some 20-30 seconds behind the East Africans. Going from 13:20-13:05 is still very far from 12:50-12:37 -- there must be other factors just as significant, if not more. Will someone now suggest that athletes born and raised and trained in low oxygen, high altitude environment, are in fact the highest responders to EPO?Regarding Paula's values, we saw the three above the 1/100 "sea-level" threshold of 103. Two were just at (actually slightly below) the 1/1000 "sea-level" (the 1/100 "altitude" threshold) around 110, and only one above. The remaining blood values must be below the 1/100 "sea-level" threshold of 103.

rekrunner wrote:

The question in the subject line is how Paula is so much faster, and in different posts you say:

- Paula "was the best runner during EPO times"

- for the men, you talked about the "best distance runners some 12 - 15 years ago" and "Now the best seem to skip the track"

I guess the nature of the question was to ignore EPO for a moment (since everyone could take it undetected) and talk about other potential factors, unless it is because she took more, or more effectively.

I see. To me, the thread question seemed to include the development of the past twelve years, namely that while literally everything improved (training concepts/general nutrition/race nutrition, shoes, possibly compression socks), nobody came close to that old world record. If the question is limited to 2003, then yes, the answer should not include doping.

So then we are looking for the answers for these two different questions:

1) Why was she so superior to the other runners of her time?

2) Why are even the best current (doped) runners slower than her?

I thought, 1) was a given, so I was focusing on 2). The answers for 2) naturally include the ones for 1), plus imho EPO.

In that context, I am also wondering whether East African females have genetic advantages over Caucasian females, as seems to be the case for the men. Current marathon results seem to suggest that, which makes question 2) even more difficult to answer without invoking EPO or other drugs.

Snooze Alarm wrote:

It's like you are cruising down the freeway at the legal limit, and getting passed by most of the other cars going ten miles/hour over the limit. At some point you will tend to say "Fugget!" and step on the gas.

The people I've seen driving with drugs have been weaving all over the place.

Personally I think people who take drugs are idiots.

Don't let me define the question -- after all it's not mine.My interpretation was "all time", and my hope was to see, taking doping for granted, some responses not linked to doping.