The emperor has no clothes: Jemima Sumgong has tested positive for EPO!!!

rekrunner wrote:

Marc Daly's (BBC journalist) EPO experiment certainly makes for great emotional journalism, especially among those looking to confirm their beliefs, but he did not actually take enough samples to build an ABP profile. And he did not measure his own performance. As we learned from the CIRC, in cycling, cyclists believed that micro-dosing also means micro-benefit.

On Daly's experiment; if his VO2max & wattage hadn't significantly improved from the microdose regiment, you'd first to imperiously point out how EPO doesn't work on an amatuer, so therefore it wouldn't work on elites. So, because EPO was effective with an amatuer, it's just considered "emotional journalism?"

Secondly, cyclists are using microdosed EPO as a masking agent to boost the suppressed reticulocytes that occur when transfusing. Remember it's the increase in Hb and the decrease in retics that jack-up the off-score. Keep the off-score down and a rider can fly under the radar. I believe Landis has talk about this in detail in the info he provided to Ashenden several years ago, and Morkeberg has a paper on EPO/blood doping:

Also, the metabolic modulator, AICAR, is noted in the CIRC report as being popular with the riders and may be replacing the use of EPO:

People have concluded Marc Daly's experiment proved how easy to "beat the ABP". The ABP is designed to look at long term trends spanning seasons. He did not build an ABP profile. For example, there are no out of competition samples. You can't beat the ABP without building a complete ABP profile, and running the ABP software on the full profile.It's emotional because it is not scientific.The overall goal isn't carefully targeted blood values, but improving performance. In cycling, micro-dosing means micro-benefit. In the CIRC report, they wrote that pre-ABP, of the impact of doping was 10-15%, while post-ABP, it dropped to 3-5%.

VO2maximum wrote:

...

On Daly's experiment; if his VO2max & wattage hadn't significantly improved from the microdose regiment, you'd first to imperiously point out how EPO doesn't work on an amatuer, so therefore it wouldn't work on elites. So, because EPO was effective with an amatuer, it's just considered "emotional journalism?"

Secondly, cyclists are using microdosed EPO as a masking agent to boost the suppressed reticulocytes that occur when transfusing. Remember it's the increase in Hb and the decrease in retics that jack-up the off-score...

The panorama journalist (Marc Daly??) did give a pre-doping sample(s) to testing authorities, his argument quite fairly is that he never doped before so this initial sample represents his default blood reading. A longer term study with him doing it again 6 months later would be superior. But his self experiment was also conducted by French journalists who conducted a similar experiment with the same results (I can't remember who did their's first). So there is the repetition factor producing the same results.

Personally, the most interesting thing to come out of the investigation was the uncovering of Allan Wells and the thyroid meds (bloody heck, thyroid meds who would have known?).

The data doesn't need to be complete, but representative.The 89% figure comes from the Sunday Times -- this is clear from the quote you included.It is also inline with other "prevalence studies" looking at large data sets.The long-winded blurb, was a response to "analyst" about assumptions he thinks I need. In bullets:- For most nations, EPO made little impact in best times, because best times progressed slowly, if at all, EPO or not- There is a high correlation between "African-ness" and fast elite times, even in non-African nations- The correlation between EPO and fast elite times has not been shown- if there are only 3 anecdotes out of the top 27 fast times involving EPO, this data is far from conclusive- The other 24 need to be evaluated- Because they are anecdotes, even these 3 need further analysis to eliminate confounders- 3 out of 27 (11%) is also inline with "prevalence studies"- It is also far from complete. Applying your standard, 3 out of 27 is "a partial set", and any conclusions about EPO would be "bold" statements.

casual obsever wrote:

VO2maximum wrote:

I don't think that means much mainly because of what we learned from the Poistogova case: Per the ARD recordings, she admits to using EPO but yet has a "normal" appearing hematological profile of her ABP. She's a medal winner from London, so how many other Poistogova's are out there as medal winners with no suspicious blood values?

Many of course. Look at Farah for example. Plus, as rekrunner knows but often ignores, that leaked database was only a partial set, so that statement is quite bold:

"89% of World Championship and Olympic medal winners never recorded suspicious blood values ever in their careers."

Plus, 89%? Who says? Based on which events?

As for his long-winded blurp from yesterday, did anyone understand it? Something like: "since only Europeans, Chinese, and Africans set world records during the EPO era, EPO does not work?"

Wrong! Ugarova was sanctioned on just FIVE samples taken between Mar/2012 & Jan/2013...that's 9 months, far from "long term trends spanning seasons." (Do you remember the PDF I posted on her CAS hearing?). Ugarova's case is textbook blood doping (i.e., increased Hb/very low retics) while Daly's is textbook microdosing with a modest increase in HB AND retics. Along as Daly doesn't go very high on the HB, it doesn't matter if it's short-term, long-term, OOC or whatever. The ABP off-score is more sensitive to an incresse in HB and a corresponding decrease in retics. Again with Ugarova, her extreme high off-score of 141.00 didn't come so much from the modest Hb increase of ~8%, but from the ridiculously low retics (0.16). The ABP was primarily designed to detect blood doping.

You must have not read the same CIRC report that I read. The report also said AICAR was popular within the peloton (44% increase in endurance with one animal model) and the use of corticosteroids IC for performance enhancement was mentioned. Tramadol abuse IC was also noted. And HIFs (e.g., FG4592) are becoming an emerging ESA, which apparently doesn't trigger any profound alterations in the ABP:

I think you would know by now that per the history of cycling riders very seldom use one PED. It's all about the synergistic effects of multiple PEDs with these guys.

VO2maximum wrote:

You must have not read the same CIRC report that I read. The report also said AICAR was popular within the peloton (44% increase in endurance with one animal model) and the use of corticosteroids IC for performance enhancement was mentioned. Tramadol abuse IC was also noted. And HIFs (e.g., FG4592) are becoming an emerging ESA, which apparently doesn't trigger any profound alterations in the ABP.

The CIRC-report actually states clearly (p. 25) the following:

Based on interviews with current stakeholders in the cycling community, the Commission believes that partly as a response to improvements in anti-doping, technical cheating has increased. The Commission was told that today doping performance gains are perhaps around only 3-5%, compared to 10-15% ten years ago.

It should be emphasized that perhaps due to the combination of several factors (huge magnitude of the material, tight schedule [?] and many authors contributing to different portions etc.), the CIRC-report is far from being a strictly coherent work. So it is possible that when one combines the effects of different methods discussed, the magnitude is higher.

The problem goes thorough the report, and I think that Hein Verbruggen is on the right track in his notion that "it seems to me that the CIRC report was written by different assistants, apparently selected by Ulrich Haas, without being proper checked by the CIRC President and also without any proper final editing of the report", which leads that that there are several "contradictions and inconsistencies" in the report.

Aragon wrote:

The CIRC-report actually states clearly (p. 25) the following:

The Commission was told that today doping performance gains are perhaps around only 3-5%, compared to 10-15% ten years ago.

Whatever the exact numbers are: 3-5%, while smaller than 10-15%, is not exactly "micro"...

But yeah, I've been saying this all the time: the dopers today as a whole are slower than the dopers from the last decade because of the increasing restrictions. Of course, improvements in training, nutrition, shoes (bikes) etc. work against the decreasing gains from restricted doping.

Last, but not least, once a new currently undetectable drug comes out, we'll see another performance explosion, at least temporarily so.

It's not just pros. It's rampant in collegiate running too.

casual obsever wrote:

Whatever the exact numbers are: 3-5%, while smaller than 10-15%, is not exactly "micro"...

But yeah, I've been saying this all the time: the dopers today as a whole are slower than the dopers from the last decade because of the increasing restrictions. Of course, improvements in training, nutrition, shoes (bikes) etc. work against the decreasing gains from restricted doping.

I would go even further and claim that at most endurance sports, the differences at the top level are so miniscule, that even fractions of a percent indirect speed are enough to give good incentives to try many questionable methods.

That having been written, one of the problems with the existing literature (also with the CIRC-report) is that while there is a lot of focus on the "performance gain", the authors rarely bother to give any definition of "performance", so that part of the discussion is rendered almost borderline meaningless.

While there are some exceptions, it is too often not clear if the authors are referring to increases in maximal oxygen uptake, direct cycling speed, functional threshold power (FTP), time-to-exhaustion or some other parameter.

Just another day I went through my research file and read a 1971 article in which one of the first subjects of the first published blood doping-experiment recalled the experiment, and it was mentioned that the method had the capability to elevate "performance" by over 10 percent. Then the journalist speculates about future WR improvements, how 10000m WR would improve from 27:39.4 to 24:54.5, 5000m to 11:56.9, 3000m to 6:53.6 and the steeplechase to 7:31.8.

Obviously the law of diminishing returns needs to be factored into any broard analysis. There was an altitude training conference about a year or two back for sport scientists. Anyhow one of the speakers detailed how elite athletes and their coaches should consider any legal means of improvement greater than 0.3%. I think he went on to outline an altitude training stint of elite cyclists that gained for a matter of days before a reversal back at sea level. 1% is a massive gain for elite events 1500m and longer, 2% is gigantic.

VO2maximum wrote:

Wrong! Ugarova was sanctioned on just FIVE samples taken between Mar/2012 & Jan/2013...that's 9 months, far from "long term trends spanning seasons."

You contradicted me with an example, that still "spans seasons"? FIVE samples, covering a spring and fall season, and out-of-competition in between is FAR more than Daly did. He trained for months, then started his doping experiment, in one "in competition" phase. Ugarova's numbers are extreme, likely tripping several flags already within one year. Daly didn't "beat the ABP", because he didn't use it long enough, in a way that would be representative of a real world ABP strategy.

VO2maximum wrote:

I think you would know by now that per the history of cycling riders very seldom use one PED. It's all about the synergistic effects of multiple PEDs with these guys.

This only further complicates determining the role of EPO, if any, in running. What looks strange for me is that we don't see these synergistic effects of PEDs, even in combination, across the board in distance running, like we did in cycling.

rekrunner wrote:

This only further complicates determining the role of EPO, if any, in running. What looks strange for me is that we don't see these synergistic effects of PEDs, even in combination, across the board in distance running, like we did in cycling.

But we do, from 3:26 to 2:15. Just these two examples across the distances alone include male and female, African and non-African.

Here we go again. ONE of Ugarova's #'s is extreme - the 141.00 from the sample taken several days before the European Championships. The rest of the scores would have flown under the radar. For that 141 score with the ridiculously low retics (0.16!), she was textbook blood doping right before the ECs. Daly wasn't blood doping, he was microdosing. As long as he doesn't breach the upper parameter of his profile, which would be set on his baseline Hb #, he could microse to infinity & beyond. And some athlete's themselves, or through their doping doctor, monitor their own ABPs (imagine that), so they know damn well what their baseline #'s are and more importantly where that upper parameter is at. Remember from the article the anti-doping expert that examined Daly's profile said he could see "traces" of what Daly had done but "not of a sufficient magnitude to elicit an adverse analytical finding" in the passport. "Not of a sufficient magnitude" = not breaching the upper parameters.

So, Daly did beat the ABP. And didn't Savinova beat her ABP since her profile was never flagged when she was running up a storm winning gold medals at the Olympics & WCs?

Only after the ARD recordings surfaced did anti-doping experts retrospectively examined her profile during that 2 year span (2011/2012), where two (2) out of three (3) experts concluded that she was "likely doping" (talk about obsever variability here, lol). So in review, she admits to doping per the ARD recordings, 2 experts state she was "likely doping" and her ABP software doesn't set off any alarm bells...sorry rekrunner, but she, like Daly, beat the ABP. The Ashenden study shows it's not that hard to beat the ABP with microdosing rHuEPO, but the bigger risk now is testing positive with the sensitivity of the test improving (blood doping is the bigger problem, IMO).

In running? "if any?" Too funny...because it must have been a "placebo effect" for Christian Hesch when he used EPO over a 2 year span raising his baseline crit of 44% to 51.7%. And, btw, during that span he won nearly $40,000 in prize money in more than 75 races. Nice paydays for something that didn’t work. Poor guy should have just indulged in a regiment of altitude training & folic acid and saved all the hassel being busted and having to pay back the dough to the rightful owners 😁

You said "spanning seasons" was wrong, and then gave me the counter-example of Ugarova also "spanning seasons".

Regardless of the cases of Ugarova and Savinova, what Daly did with his anti-doping expert is not representative of a true ABP analysis on a true ABP profile, because he did not collect enough data points for long enough. Adding the names of more Russian women will not fix that.

Christian Hesch was not international class elite.

rekrunner wrote:

Christian Hesch was not international class elite.

Are you some kind of a wise guy? Hesch has a 3:58 mile PR and some of that 40 grand came from international competitions. Therefore, he's an international class elite.

Hesch obviously is a decent runner, but if his half marathon record (~9 % slower) and even his mile record (~6-7 % slower, not sure how reliable his road mile times are) are so far away from the World Record times, I wouldn't describe him as an "international class elite". The NYT-article emphasizes that he specifically avoided competing against the elites and his winning times of 2010-2012 aren't really that impressive even with a few sub-1:05 half marathons here and there:

The description of his performance improvements also raises eyebrows, because the mechanism doesn't sound anything like a textbook example of the mysterious "O2 vector"-doping where the boost is almost instant.

My key source on Hesch is the website below, but if you have some better insight on the matter, please feel free to inform us.

rekrunner

can see throw you lies and agenda no end............................

nearly as bad as conova or maybe are canova .

dope dont work on those africans ..............

but make sure the supply keeps coming just in case .

fact is that you are the dirtiest dopers out there .

kenyan's i mean at least morrocans nowadays toe line .

and lie lie lie to keep the show on the road .

rekrnnuer wrote :

- There is a high correlation between "African-ness" and fast elite times, even in non-African nations

- The correlation between EPO and fast elite times has not been shown

- if there are only 3 anecdotes out of the top 27 fast times involving EPO, this data is far from conclusive

rekrunner wrote:

- For most nations, EPO made little impact in best times, because best times progressed slowly, if at all, EPO or not

- The correlation between EPO and fast elite times has not been shown

Dude, WTH are you smoking? I got $20 bucks in my wallet, can you get me some?

Are you some kind of unwise guy? If we can pick for ourselves what "international elite" means, then go for it.3:58.68 ranks just outside the top 3500, at 3503rd best performance.I have a MALE colleague at work, decent local runner, who has won money and prizes at international races, with PBs of 1:14 in the half, and 2:36 in the marathon. These times are not international class elite for females.In discussions about EPO effectiveness "at the top", it's an indication of the real weakness of the case, that Christian Hesch becomes one of the showcase examples.

Real World Analysis wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Christian Hesch was not international class elite.

Are you some kind of a wise guy? Hesch has a 3:58 mile PR and some of that 40 grand came from international competitions. Therefore, he's an international class elite.