Zach Miller Ultra Runner - Possible Doper or Proof of Development Possibilities??

DId u guys see this video clip of Zach before the chute?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60wsxmurDMU

If anything it's video evidence he is not taking EPO. Athletes on EPO do not sound like an asthmatic dog. EPO users will be breathing like an easy effort while the output is much higher than other athletes.

It looks and sounds like Zach is breathing/running near his limit. His Vo2 is probably average for a talented endurance athlete but is the best grinder.

boness wrote:

If anything it's video evidence he is not taking EPO. Athletes on EPO do not sound like an asthmatic dog. EPO users will be breathing like an easy effort while the output is much higher than other athletes.

It looks and sounds like Zach is breathing/running near his limit. His Vo2 is probably average for a talented endurance athlete but is the best grinder.

Wow you're really an expert.

Zach Miller made the US Mountain team (short mountain) in 2015. He has wheels.

There is no correlation of breathing sounds made while running and EPO use.

There are many athletes who have exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and use a beta-2 adrenergic receptor agonist inhaler such as Albuterol (Salbutamol) in addition to using EPO and/or other performance enhancing drugs. Someone taking EPO may make sounds while breathing or may not make sounds while breathing.

Your idea that there could be video evidence that someone is not taking EPO is completely ridiculous. You are a complete idiot.

Nobody here at this thread is living 24 hours a day with Zach, so nobody here really knows if he is using EPO or any other drug…or is totally clean. There is zero objective evidence of Zach Miller doping.

Every post at this thread about Zach are just subjective personal opinions.

Survival of the fittest wrote:

boness wrote:

If anything it's video evidence he is not taking EPO. Athletes on EPO do not sound like an asthmatic dog. EPO users will be breathing like an easy effort while the output is much higher than other athletes.

It looks and sounds like Zach is breathing/running near his limit. His Vo2 is probably average for a talented endurance athlete but is the best grinder.

Wow you're really an expert.

She/he has a fair point - generally the "proof" people rely on to allege an athlete is doping is how easy the runner made it look and how at the finish they looked like they look fresh and appear as though they hadn't even been trying. Here this was clearly the opposite of the usual claims that an athlete was doping, as he was not making any of it look easy.

That is total subjective BS.

Hey, Zach looks like he is working hard…I am sure he is clean and not doping!!! Yea!!! Let's celebrate!!!

That is why there is a urine test which detects recombinant erythropoietin in the urine by gel electrophoresis... which is used instead of your method of…

"How easy does he look on video?"

Yea. That is real objective science.

You are also a complete idiot.

Oh well.

This thread officially infected with rjm33fggt botvirus. Abort now.

ha blah blah blah ha wrote:

That is total subjective BS.

Hey, Zach looks like he is working hard…I am sure he is clean and not doping!!! Yea!!! Let's celebrate!!!

That is why there is a urine test which detects recombinant erythropoietin in the urine by gel electrophoresis... which is used instead of your method of…

"How easy does he look on video?"

Yea. That is real objective science.

You are also a complete idiot.

Oh well.

I thought the OP asked a very reasonable question - how is Zach Miller seemingly outperforming his short distance potential by so much? I also thought Sage Canaday's answer was pretty convincing - he isn't, 50+ mile mountain races with steep grades, rugged terrain, and large total elevation changes require a different skill set, and don't correlate with the short stuff like flat/road ultras do. (I did think it was a little disquieting that Sage emphasized what a good guy Zach is - what would your opinion by if he was a total a-hole? - but I still think it's a strong argument.)

So my question is, does anyone think this is a flawed argument, and how so?

5/10K on the track is an entirely different sport from hilly single-track 50 milers. Some can do both reasonable well (King, Sage, Walmsley), while others are more specialized (Miller, Carpenter, Jurek in 100s). If Miller had been competing 50s in college getting his ass kicked, and now was dominating (although he only beat Hawks by two minutes), that might be a red flag. As far as anyone can tell, Miller has always been a natural at 50s. No story here other than some guys have a niche and others are all-arounders.

Just to be clear (since you were responding to my comment), I agree with you overall. But, be a little careful - if he was doing as well in road 50s as he has been on the rough trails, I think there'd be more reason to be skeptical. I think the OP was right about that - some people who are fast at short distances may not excel at the long distances, but somebody with slow short distance PRs isn't going to beat the top 50 milers who (1) are well suited to the distance, and (2) are also 14:00 guys instead of 15:00 guys. (This is still kinda flimsy grounds for singling someone out, but, I'm glad there's a place for these discussions.)

I thought Sage's response was convincing though, and I'm just curious if there are any good retorts.

Also, Sage, thank you for posting on here. You really made this thread worthwhile and informative. I am curious - what fraction of the top ultrarunners would you estimate are doping, and what sorts of things do you think are prevalent?

mileage_man wrote:

....but somebody with slow short distance PRs isn't going to beat the top 50 milers who (1) are well suited to the distance, and (2) are also 14:00 guys instead of 15:00 guys. (...

Someone just did, his name is Zach Miller. What part of "Track 5000 is a completely different event from trail 50 miler" don't you understand?

I get my butt kicked in 10K XC by guys who are a minute slower in a flat road 10K. I don't accuse them of doping.

He knows a camera is filming...lots of acting & drama -> publicity

Hey thanks - yeah I agree with the road 50's comment.I've been pushing clean sport for years. CleanSport Co came out this fall so I helped raise awareness for them at launch time. It's a small step so far, but it gets the ball rolling. Last year we had the "Run Clean Get Dirty" pledge site for runners to sign. I'm all for posted whereabouts at all times and out of season/out of comp tests. You could almost say that flat track/road speed at a certain point makes one less likely to excel in the really mountainous, long ultras...just like a sub 3:50 miler isn't going to necessarily beat the 4:05 miler at a marathon. There is a tradeoff a lot of times.The sport of MUT is really ripe for doping. People hardly ever get tested, and the advantages could be huge with super fast recovery from hard, high mileage training and "quads of steel" for the pounding of downhills and the power needed for uphills.Someone with a high Vo2max has the capacity to climb really well but they then just need the musculature and leg strength/support. Maybe drugs can give them that edge?Calorie intake and stomach issues aside (a big weakness of mine this year), it's the leg strength that is often the limiting factor. When I raced Comrades with Max King a few years ago I saw some guys bomb down those hills on pavement at 5-flat mile place. Total disregard to quad damage and normal ultra pacing (note: CR pace as Comrades by Lenoid is around 6-flat pace for the up year...which is totally ridiculous...and we all know his history). Two guys that finished ahead of us got busted with a race day drug test. In trail-ultra-mountain running there was that guy in the top 10 at UTMB who got busted on a race day test for EPO last year. I'd imagine EPO would be a drug of choice. I'd guess maybe only 5% to 10% of top, sponsored runners might dope (that is a total guess though, it could be lower). The sport is for sure not clean...we already know that. I honestly trust the vast majority of people.Finally there is plenty of incentive: prize money is rather minimal, but there are contracts from sponsors, international travel perks, career changing opportunities, ego-boosting social media/news article attention, even gear/shoes, etc. You're also right: being a "nice guy" has nothing to do with it. But (as i've said all along in this thread), I of course believe Zach Miller is clean.

rjm33fggtvirus wrote:

This thread officially infected with rjm33fggt botvirus. Abort now.

Haha! This is funny.

S. Canaday wrote:

The sport of MUT is really ripe for doping. People hardly ever get tested, and the advantages could be huge with super fast recovery from hard, high mileage training and "quads of steel" for the pounding of downhills and the power needed for uphills.

...

When I raced Comrades with Max King a few years ago I saw some guys bomb down those hills on pavement at 5-flat mile place. Total disregard to quad damage and normal ultra pacing

OK, as a really good downhiller, at least on non-technical trails, I disagree with this. Though I temper this with my inexperience in ultras - one finish and one DNF.

I shared this in a downhill running thread maybe a month or two ago. As a 47 year old, I can still bomb long downhills on roads or fire roads at 5-flat pace or faster. On strava I have 4 miles of a 6 mile downhill at 4:47 pace (slowed on the 6 mile segment by a couple steep uphills... feel like I can roll that 4:47 pace for 6-12+ miles if I had an appropriately long all downhill run). I have 2:52 kilos, and so on up to the longest downhills that I commonly run (6 miles). Without going back to look it up, the gradient adjusted pace on the 4:47 pace downhills are probably only in the vicinity of 6:00 pace on the flat.

I have often done these long fast downhills during periods when I haven't done real downhills in weeks or months to toughen up. And I have not been sore at all at the bottom, or the next day or several days. Just extrapolating from this, I suggest that some people can just roll those road downhills without quad damage. I can get the quad damage on some downhills if I'm not done the downhill training, but only on the downhills that I can't roll that fast - it's the braking action to stay in control on the techier SLOWER downhills that would do that to me. For how I imagine Comrades, basically anything where you could average 5-flat, I'd imagine that that would be the kind of downhill where I wouldn't get quad damage.

Sub 5-min mile pace on roads/smooth downhill trails for a 10km or half marathon is one thing. At many mountain ultras the technicality of the trails (as well as the steepness) tend to limit this...but the point is one must "pace themselves" on extended downhills (think 4000' of downhill followed by a 4000' climb over and over at UTMB...for 105 miles). The other key is this: Yeah, that's great you and others can run downhill fast for 6-8 miles at a time....but try doing it 30 or 40 miles deep into an ultra though (after 10,000' of climbing).Then the key is being able to climb uphill well after those big downhills (the transition). Even in a much less hilly, and shorter race (shorter than an ultra that is) like the Boston Marathon you don't want to fly down the first 10km (mostly downhill) way faster than the pace you want to average for the entire marathon...or you'll get eaten up in the Newton Hills and/or bonk hard. My point is one benefit of drugs would be to make your legs "extra strong." You benefit from faster recovery so you can do extra hard, high volume training. I believe that would be a big performance gain in a long mountain-ultra race (or very hilly ultra).

I should add, my DNF was in TNF50 CA one year ago. According to strava, I rolled a 4:46 mile in the dark somewhere in that first long downhill, but that was only 6:50 GAP. My quads were later destroyed, but not from that hill - that felt smooth as silk and easy coasting. The damage was from later hills that had drainage ruts and steep switchbacks that you need to slow down for, and the going for it attitude, that did me in. It also didn't help that due to the winter conditions where I live up north, the last couple of months before the race, I didn't do anything to toughen up my downhill legs for the slower downhills.

I was specifically thinking about what you were saying about Comrades, which is road. I acknowledge the damage that I would get on a more technical downhill, but it doesn't happens on roads for me. And yes, I would have no hesitation rolling the downhills on something like the Boston Marathon, if I were to ever race that.

ha blah blah blah ha wrote:

That is total subjective BS.

Hey, Zach looks like he is working hard…I am sure he is clean and not doping!!! Yea!!! Let's celebrate!!!

That is why there is a urine test which detects recombinant erythropoietin in the urine by gel electrophoresis... which is used instead of your method of…

"How easy does he look on video?"

Yea. That is real objective science.

You are also a complete idiot.

Oh well.

Did I say running hard was proof of not taking drugs? Did I say running easy was proof of taking drugs? No, idiot, I didn't. I pointed out that people making accusations of drug use around here without any proof usually rely on the person making it look too easy as some sort of indication of drug use. Now it seems somebody just has to do well and they'll accuse them of drug use.

And your urine test, idiot - you've never heard of people taking drugs for years and yet passing urine tests? Your genius solution is a urine test will catch all drug cheats. I can't believe nobody else has every thought of that. Idiot.