Did Sebastian Coe blood dope?

Are the benefits/gains from altitude training significantly less for an 800/1500 m runner than 5000/10000m runner? Didn't El Guerrouj train in the Atlas Mountains?

Deanouk wrote:

Boe wrote:

On a side note about altitude, did Coe ever incorporate altitude training into his regime?

Did Ovett and Cram do it?

From what I've read, Peter Coe was not convinced of the benefits of high altitude training for long periods, certainly during Coe junior's peak years. I know Coe would go to medium altitude to train in Switzerland for a couple of weeks peak season, but I think that was it. I don't think there were ever any long stints of training at high altitude out of season. I think they did do a bit more towards the end of his career, but in 88 he picked up bronchitis while at altitude, came down to sea level to run in trials and failed to qualify.

These are two different time periods I'm referring to, i.e., the passport era & pre-passport period. In the pre-passport era the objective would have been to boost Hct levels as high as the athlete wanted to, or what their doping doctor(s) would safely permit, while trying to avoid glowing for doping controls. In the passport era, athletes can only boost within the parameters of their individual baseline #'s without being flagged. If a normal off-score is somewhere around 85-95, and a score of >133 is needed for "conclusive evidence of blood-manipulation," then it appears there is considerable variability before an athlete could be sanctioned. And if the ABP is never flagged as suspicious, then the athlete flies under the radar. Remember with Savinova & Poistogova - it was only after the scandal surfaced did WADA retrospectively examined their ABPs where Savinova was "likely doping" by 2 out of 3 WADA experts, and Poistogova's was deemed "normal." Both never had their passports flagged as suspicious and would have gotten away with their doping if not for the ARD-recordings.

wada_independent_commission_report_1_en.pdf

EPO raises Hct and Hct increases VO2max, as pointed out in the Joyner paper. And VO2max is most important physiological variable determining performances in races of 1500 to 5000 meters. Is it any coincidence that the confirmed EPO users that we've talking about; Ramzi, Mourhit, Boulami, Kaouch, Garcia were running fast times & winning medals in distances between 1500 & 5000 meters? If EPO didn't improve their times & allow them to push through barriers that they normally couldn't have accomplished clean, then why would they have doped? 🤔. Why not achieve the same results clean and avoid the catastrophic consequences of getting caught, sanctioned and stripped of medals (e.g., Ramzi losing a precious Gold from Beijing). And as the evidence shows, these athlete's post-ban times were no where near their pre-banned times.

There's also an interesting study through WADA & the University of Glasgow on "Genetic signatures: Application of EPO detection" that involved well-trained Kenyan runners & EPO. The average VO2max of the test subjects was ~65 and their baseline Hct was ~46%. Through rHuEPO administered over several weeks their Hct increased to ~49% and their VO2max to ~69. They ran a 3000 meter TT, and showed an improvement of ~5% over their Pre-EPO time. Though the study wasn't blinded nor involving elites, it shows a correlation between EPO-induced increased Hct & VO2max and improved running times:

Many of those 87% never tested positive...they were involved in scandals and confessed (e.g., Operation Puerto). It just goes to show that if suspicious athletes "pass the tests"...it doesn't mean much 😄.

rekrunner wrote:

Yes Boulami, Mourhit, Sanchez, Garcia, and all the other national record setters and indoor champions. Throw in busted for steroids Baumann.

These are not athletes in the same league as El Guerrouj, Komen, Tergat, Geb, and Bekele -- none of whom have been linked to any EPO or blood doping. The fact is that if EPO could help these other nations compete, it did not, during the EPO-era.

No one has supassed Boulami's steeplechase times. Tergat's, and Geb's times have been surpassed - I would put Boulami in the same league as those athletes (Bekele, Geb, etc) with respect to their specialist events in terms of absolute performance achieved.

Mourhit destroyed everyone in the world cross on multiple occasions while also winning world indoor medals over 3000m (In 2001 being beaten by El Guerrouj who neither Bekele or Geb could beat). Geb in contrast never came close to winning world cross. Mourhit was also 7th all time over 3000m with his 7 mins 26 xx. At his peak Mourhit was in the same league as guys like Geb, Tergat etc and this is further backed up by the fact that he won a outdoor world champs medal over 5000m in 1999.

You say that El Guerrouj, Komen, Tergat, Geb, and Bekele have not been linked to any EPO or blood doping but this does not mean much as we know that the testing system is far from adequate and was not/is not catching all of the cheats. El Guerrouj did have a training partner (Adil Kaouch) busted for EPO for what its worth - not sure if that can be qualified as a verfiable "link" to EPO.

Lance allegedly started to use rEPO in 1995 and entered the USPS around 1997-1998, so both the 1991 (6.2 litres) and 1993 (6.1 litres) figures are his pre-USPS values. I am not aware of the source of the 84 ml/kg/min figure quoted now-and-then. It could originate from one of his biographies or from training books by Carmichael or Burke, but there is an indication on the figure also in the partly flawed Coyle paper:

Blood doping specialist Michael Ashenden objected shortly after the SCA hearings about the "conservative assumption" of using the highest figure on grounds that "[t]o test someone five times and pick the highest number as the Vo2 would be akin to a golfer playing five rounds of golf, taking his best score, and claiming that was his level".

The Coyle paper is available in full in PDF-form in the following link (VO2-figures on page 3 ie. 2193):

Even when the "highish" hematocrit values are in the PDF-file I linked to, I'll now admit that there was some sloppiness from my part, because the 2008-2009 record is far more complete. In the past, I recall even plotting the same data into an excel file when discussing Lance's comeback blood doping allegations in some cycling forums. That is how short memory is when one finds interesting items...

Mourhit is not in the class of Geb or Tergat at his peak.

Vos wrote:

Mourhit is not in the class of Geb or Tergat at his peak.

Even with his PED-fuelded performances? C'mon...7:26 & 12:49 is nothing to scoff at - those are big time performances back then. And how can we be certain if the other competitors weren't using PEDs? Are we to believe that Mourit was the only beneficiary of high-octane doping back then?

The 2000 Olympics for Mourhit was remarkably disappointing along with his major championship record. Hence, he is not in the class of Geb or Tergat.Ironically, 7:26 and 12:49 he finished 2nd in both races to Saidi Seif and Lahlafi.

Raptor wrote:

Vos wrote:

Mourhit is not in the class of Geb or Tergat at his peak.

Even with his PED-fuelded performances? C'mon...7:26 & 12:49 is nothing to scoff at - those are big time performances back then. And how can we be certain if the other competitors weren't using PEDs? Are we to believe that Mourit was the only beneficiary of high-octane doping back then?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mourhit

Vos wrote:

The 2000 Olympics for Mourhit was remarkably disappointing along with his major championship record. Hence, he is not in the class of Geb or Tergat.

Ironically, 7:26 and 12:49 he finished 2nd in both races to Saidi Seif and Lahlafi.

Perhaps not Geb, but I disagree with Tergat...strictly based on times. On distances they have in common (3/5/10) their PBs, with the exception of the 10, are very similar: Mourhit 7:26/Tergat 7:28, Mourhit 12:49/Tergat 12:49, Tergat 26:27/Mourhit 26:52. So, strictly based on time, how can you say Mourhit's not in Tergat's class? 🤔.

Ref Sydney, Mourhit's shown as a DNF on the 10,000 and a DNS on the 5. Did he get injured or something and drop out of the 10, and then was unable to start the 5? I vaguely remember watching that race but can't recall Mourhit dropping out (also nothing on his Wikipedia). And if he wasn't injured, the other thing that comes to mind is that Sydney was the first Olympics to debut the EPO "on" model test (detection possible within 5 days of last usage). I wonder if he may have been glowing and dropped out of the 10 to avoid a post-race test, and therefore also not start the 5. However, he didn't test positive until 2002, so he was able to continue with his high-octane progran for a few more years.

Vos wrote:

The 2000 Olympics for Mourhit was remarkably disappointing along with his major championship record. Hence, he is not in the class of Geb or Tergat.

Ironically, 7:26 and 12:49 he finished 2nd in both races to Saidi Seif and Lahlafi.

Mourhit was in the same league/class as Geb or Tergat. Being in the same league/class does not mean that you are necessarily absolutely better. Mourhit won 2 world cross titles comfortably in style and Geb never came close to winning a world cross title. Mourhit has one global medal over 5000m, the same as Geb. Mourhit also combined winning a world indoor medal over 3000m (behind El G who Geb, Bekele, or Tergat could not beat over 3k) with a world cross title (run over very heavy mud) in the same season showing a versatility that neither Geb nor Tergat ever had.

Saidi Saif and Lalafi won global major champ medals and ran stellar times over 3k/5k and were therefore also in the same league/class as Tergat or Geb.

Mourhit and Saidi Saif were caught for PEDs. Geb and Tergat were not caught but that does not mean that they were not using PEDs. With the testing system being as it was/is the best we can say objectively is "we don't know" and that is not pointing a finger of accusation at them.

Vos wrote:

Mourhit is not in the class of Geb or Tergat at his peak.

1st, Mohammed Mourhit Belgium 35:00

2nd,Assefa Mezegebu Ethiopia 35:01

3rd, Paul Tergat Kenya 35:02

a totally ludicrous decision !!!

their rules stated the times had to be auto times from 1/1/81

it was an abomination the record was even submitted let alone ratified !!!

a laughable breach of the rules !!!

so ???

i don't care if it was the home track of the chief roadsweeper/janitor of the iaaf

coe had no auto-time, meaning no wr

is this a joke ???

you have been told enough times that olizarenko's '80wr had 1'54.85 unquestioned auto time but HT of 1'54.7, 1'54.6 !! & 1'54.5 !!!

it means HT in mandatory auto time era were a nonsense

is this a joke ???

he lost ~ 0.1s

it was a small swerve around Billy & tight in lane by 1/2 way

trivial loss

no

likely

1'42.2+

on a legit 8 lane 116 / 84 with auto timing

laughable mickey-mouse track of now unheard of 6 lanes

total abomination !!

if anyone ran a fast 200 or above nowdays on a 6 lane track, it woud be laughed outta here

it has to be 8 lanes & unquestioned auto-timing as Cruz with 1'41.77 in '84 after horrendous number of fast races in few days before, costing probably best part of 1s for koln

firenze, just a track stuck around some presumed kickaball ground to add in some income

no attention paid to legitimacy

is this a joke ???

no one in their right mind that mickey-mouse nonsense of meagre 6 lanes was anywhere close to gold standard 116 / 84, which any "true" track fan woud accept as only legit configuration

that track was probably only 398m at best

stepanova ran an incredible 52.94wr in '86 which i nearly fell off my Lazyboy when i heard it back then

it was on

398.13m !!!

iaaf didn't care !!!

they ratified wrs on tracks nearly 2m short !!!

Deanouk wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Tracks: the running tracks of the 1970s & early 1980s were quicker for distance races than they are today, Christchurch, Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki etc would be illegal today

Not sure about this! What evidence do you base that claim on?

nonsense non 116 / 84

a 105 / 95 such is oslo in '70s wouda quickened a 800 by 0.3 / 0.4s

oslo 105 / 95 woud be illegal today as 110 / 90 is maximum deviation from 116 / 84

in addition, no energy return rule of limit of 65% as for nearly 3 decades

those tracks couda been 70% energy return !!!

I have heard many times that the modern 'mondo' tracks of last 20 years are faster

is this joke ???

which athlete woud you propose was running 1'43 /1'44 in '79 / '81 & 1'42 / 1'43 in '99 / '01 ???

please don't state watman who's intellect was so great he left school at 14y...

rekrunner wrote:The men's marathon is difficult to explain with typical EPO timelines.

For 10 years, no one beat Dinsamo's 1988 world record of 2:06:50.

So until 1998, no one used EPO or blood doping to beat 2:06:50

it's easy to explain

M running was crap in '80's until da costa in '98

i use "mathematical" tables which have for a track :

27'00 = 2"04'57

dinsamo's time in '88 was = 27'20 / 27'25 on a track when wr was 27'13 & clarke wouda probably run 27-flat in mid-'60s on a '70s track & Henry probably intrinsically a 26'30 / 26'40 in a wet miserable 27- mid in milan when he ran in 3rd lane the whole race !!!

M only got close to track times when it got down into 2'04s...

is this a joke ???

i saw nearly everyone of those runs

the conditions/pacing were terrible for many !!!

geb ran a 7'26i which was likely 7'21 outdoors

kennster ran 7'26 off execrable 5'02+ in freezing downpour !!

he was in 7'20 shape that day if ideal weather & dragged thru in 4'53

if you think he lacked 2k abilty, look up indoor record

tergat, in his 12'49 ran it stoopidly as training run for his 10k WR attempt 9 days later !!!

who on earth woud be as dumb as tergat to try to run fantastic 5k before his aim of 10k WR just 9 days later ???!!!

he tried to chase 2 legends in zurich & faded badly in last 1k, but still held on for 12'49

if he'd even-paced it that day, he wouda probably run 12'45, but it was a training run for the 10k wr !!!

there he ran 26'27 off jog of 13'18 then quickening to a 7'50 finish !!!

if he'd rested fully for that race, with no zurich & fast, fast pace from gun, the clocking wouda been

~ 26'10

that is :

Eliud-'16 level ability & not far off Mutai-'11 new york / Kamwo-'16 cardiff ability

is this a joke ??

you looked at times but not considered pacing/weather

mourhit coudn't even carry any of those guys jockstrap when he ran 7'26 or 12'49

is this a joke ??

micro-dosing means micro-crap improvements, perhaps few tenths over 10k

to make a drug work, you have to have serious, proper doses !!!

micro-dosing is most laughable nonsense i read on any forum !!!

is this a joke ???

do you have any clue at all about pharmacology categories &/or drug companies shareholders ???

any guy in the western world coud go to a western doc in '90s onwards & get a private prescription for it if he made some excuse for it & doc was willing to bet his license on the guy not getting a CVI/MI/marrow suppession & not sue

the "patient" woud pay drug cost of $100s+ & doc fee

learn :

easy to get as more profit for pharma

why ?

what red flag ??

to who ???

of what ???

of what 100% pharmaceutical grade epo ???

are you naive enough to believe the epo big pharma sell for $100s+++ is same as nonsense you claim can be bought for 60 bucks in iten ???

You've been asked before to find any evidence or even suggestions from a third party, that the Firenze track was short. You have never managed to do so. Shouting loudly, nonsense that only you believe, doesn't make it true.

Same for Oslo track. You offer no proof as to the configuration of the track.

Just your warped opinion. And in any case, short, tighter bends slow down times. Mondo tracks are faster than 70's synthetic ones. If anything the times set on that track would be faster on current ones.

Re manual times. Your hypocrisy doesn't go unnoticed. You claim professional time keepers employed by the IAAF are innacurate in Coe's race, due to one anomaly from a different meet. Yet you never mention this when discussing any of Ryun's manual times. Perhaps we should add 0.5 secs to all his times or just ignore them because we can't rely on their accuracy.

I also seem to recall several of Ryun's races being held on 6 lane tracks. Thus they must also be dismissed for record purposes or posterity. No?

There is nothing in IAAF rules that stipulate world records are not recognised if set on 6 lane tracks or on tracks that do not have the preferred configuration. They only stipulate that all major championships have to take place on an 8 lane track with the preferred configuration. So your point is moot and totally irrelevant.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:Interesting article from the Guardian, though it starts with an error. Altitude was a performance enhancer for Beamon

eh ?

get perspective

altitude was trivial advantage for beamon

huge advantage was he nailed jump on board & maya had upto a +2.99 wind which incompetent "rookie" judge, who was soon replaced, believed had to be rounded down to lowest whole number, meaning 2.0 "official"

the altitude cost handdful of cms

his jump was maybe intrinsic

~ 8.55 - 8.60

at sea-level with 0 wind

altitude had trivial effect...

read more

he was nothing coach

at 21y, all he had managed was a 1.44.95 loss to mike boit on coe's home track !

find me top US boyz who coud't run 1'44.95 at 21y !!!

they were nonsense

he was rubbish junior on clockings

eh ?

how woud you know ?

you with him ?

it's not in any reference i have

he spent helluva lot of time in Macolin, switzerland

unknown small locale...

is this a joke ??

he spent lotta time in Macolin, switzerland !!!

is this a joke ???

he spent lotta time in Macolin, switzerland when/at his peak !!!

so ?

why did he go there in 1st place ???

to get bronchitis ???

you associate altitude with bronchitis ???

how come all the other occasions he went to Macolin, switzerland, he didn't get bronchitis ???

is this a joke ???

the reason coe didn't qualify in '88 was that he was finished by '88

he was dragged along to a 1'43+ in '89, but anyone watching live in '88 knew he was finished

it was pathetic seeing him drag it out in '89

woeful

calculo wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:Interesting article from the Guardian, though it starts with an error. Altitude was a performance enhancer for Beamon

eh ?

get perspective

altitude was trivial advantage for beamon

huge advantage was he nailed jump on board & maya had upto a +2.99 wind which incompetent "rookie" judge, who was soon replaced, believed had to be rounded down to lowest whole number, meaning 2.0 "official"

the altitude cost handdful of cms

his jump was maybe intrinsic

~ 8.55 - 8.60

at sea-level with 0 wind

altitude had trivial effect...

Good lord you do have too much time on your hands, altitude benefits events that require power and higher velocity this is a pretty well established fact. The IAAF marks World Records set at altitude with an 'A' because they are enhanced.

is this a joke ?

read stepanova at

398.13

or can't you read ?

firenze, completely unknown meet in '81

i read all broadsheets every day back in '81 & not one mentioned this utter nonsense track

unknown meet

is this a joke

where was coe's auto-time ???

where was the 1/1/81 auto-time time ???

impress me, where is it ???

where is auto-time on that nonsense 6-lane track ???

is this a joke ?

where is auto-time on that nonsense 6-lane track ???

offer it

nonsense track

is this a joke ???

i told you it was illegal/nonsense 105/95, then showed you wiki !!! :

"Bislett's career as a speed skating venue ended in 1988, when it was decided that ice production would discontinue, even though the stadium did not meet international requirements for any other sport"

illegal venue for anything over 100m !!!

no

above

is this a joke ???

if bend is 0, then straight is 200m

so, according to your logic, 200m straight is slowest way to run 200 ???!!!

is this a joke ???

do you have energy return figures for both ?

is this a joke ?

what energy-return figures do you offer ?

offer others

is this a joke ?

no HT after

1/1/81

do you not comprehend ?

is this a joke ??

what professional timekeepers ???

utterly absurd !!!

it was unknown mickey-mouse meet !!!

what on earth professional time keepers woud ever be in firenze ???

is this a joke ???

the olizarenzkho meet was hugely more important than firenze

why weren't you watching the sport back then ???

auto-time not required then

can't you think ?

if you got better clockings than Tribune or Times from '66, offer...

necessary for non-auto-times after 1/1/81

firenze was nonsense mickey-mouse meet with no auto-timing when mandatory

i agree

it shoud be ignored

is this a joke ???

name them !

name them

which ones ???

is this a joke ???

a complete joke !!!

no serious track fan coud consider a 6-laner as a serious track !!!

when was the last time a 200m or above WR set on anything other than a 8-laner ???

when was last time a 100m WR set on any other than 8-laner ???

is this a joke ???

it has to be 116 / 84

finally you :

learn to think

it makes coe's firenze run immediately illegal as no 8-lanes !!!

is this a joke ?

you already collapsed from admitting major runs have to be on 8-laners

above