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

Did Fagan improve? I don't know. When did he start? Who do I ask? Who should I believe and why?Did Eddy H improve? He ran slower than his PBs from 10 years earlier.Did Lombard improve? Clearly, after making several changes. Hard to say how much EPO helped, without considering the other changes.

here we go once again wrote:

So Fagan and Eddy H did not improve? Lombard did not improve? Or are they not good enough or are there no stats on when they took?

Real World Analysis wrote:

Best arguments for what case? There's been a plethora of information on this and other EPO doping threads on cases with elites (e.g., performance improvements, ABP sanction details, testimonials, etc). To decide whether or not rHuEPO is effective based soley on Hesch's ambiguous case is to obfuscate the much stronger anecdotal evidence with elites.

I haven't disputed that there is plenty of evidence that rEPO is effective with recreational runners and one is very (I really mean very) tempted to conclude that it gives some edge to elites also. The issue we've debated has been simply whether one can make any conclusion one way or to another on the Hesch case.

Real World Analysis wrote:

True...we don't know much about Hesch. OTOH, we know a lot more with the Cathal Lombard case...

That pretty much concludes the debate on Hesch. I wouldn't still get too excited about the 10K improvement of Lombard's as most runners run it like a once a year, so it isn't illustrative of his capabilities.

My arguments and frames of reference have been pretty static. You keep shifting the argument to individuals, and I shift it back to looking at top results across large populations. I get the sense you saw somewhere the phrase "intellectually dishonest", and decided to use it here to make you sound more intelligent. After six months, I actually don't get the sense you even fully understand my points. You seem somewhat blinded by applying false standards like "clinical studies are the gold standard proving all extrapolations are valid", and continuing to ignore that anecdotes, for world record holders like Boulami, and massive improvers like Lombard, and proven female dopers, like Sumgong, Jeptoo, and Shobukhova, are still uncontrolled observations, that must be accepted, always keeping in mind that they are uncontrolled, even if that's the best "evidence" available. It would be "intellectually dishonest" to ignore and pretend that "confounders" do not exist. The dishonesty continues when conclusions about EPO effectiveness require making several assumptions in your favor.Unless the observations are controlled, it is not possible to assess the individual performance benefits of EPO, on an individual basis, using history of race performances, because it is not possible to obtain the "clean" performance, versus the "doped" performance, with any significant certainty or reliability. It is also not possible to contribute the improvements were caused by EPO, without addressing the potential contribution of confounders, like changes in training, and the effects of other drugs, like steroids. This is why individual examples fall FAR short of being conclusive.So then what is possible? With large populations, we can get overcome individual variations, and look for trends. If EPO use is rampant, virtually undetectable, powerful, and universally effective, we should be able to see some impact on top race times in the aggregate, on large populations, and across many populations, during the EPO-era, versus before and after. Yet we don't observe the same thing across all populations, and we don't observe similarities to other sports, like cycling. We only see significant performance improvements (either with or without EPO) on a narrow populations, which can be categorised almost exclusively by nationality. Most of the top athletic populations, by nationality, seem to have been largely unimpacted by the introduction of EPO, then the introduction of the ABP. This result alone seems odd, given that EPO was universally available, and universally abused in other sports. We seem to need to accept, as part of the EPO mythology, that, in running, unlike cycling, EPO was generally not used by top non-African athletes, for two decades.I've pointed you time and again to look at race performances "at the top". If EPO is working "at the top", it seems to be only working for many East Africans, and a few North Africans. For non-Africans, we see it seems to work for athletes "in the middle". We seem to have no good examples "at the top" for "non-Africans".If you take the example of the 10K, at the top 106 performances, under 27 minutes, 3 of them come from 2 non-African Americans, after the ABP introduction in 2009. So when I ask for examples of EPO "working at the top", for male non-Africans during the EPO-era, the conversation quickly turns to #730 of all time, Cathal Lombard, or #3500 of all time, Christian Hesch, or Eddy Hellebuyck, who I cannot even find in the all time top lists. Then the conversation drifts to creative ways of defining these athletes as "top" athletes.For 5K it is similar, we have six non-Africans all time running under 13:00, three before the ABP, and three after.This pattern is universal, across all distances from 1500m to the marathon. East Africans dominate, a few North Africans are in the mix, and non-Africans are relegated to becoming national champions that can only compete with their 1985 predecessors.So we have at least three possibilities:Canova: EPO cannot work for top East Africans, living and training at altitude, EPO believers: EPO works just the same for East Africans and "everyone else"Historical fact: EPO on "everyone else", during the EPO-era, did not result in significant improvements of "top time", either in quantity (# of athletes), or in quality (magnitude of improvement).If we look at historical times during the EPO-era, we should actually form the opposite conclusion: that EPO only works on high altitude natives, and is virtually ineffective on "top" sea-level inhabitants. At sea-level, it only works on medium level athletes, and well-trained athletes in EPO studies.If EPO is the most likely candidate being responsible for the massive improvements in East Africans, and North Africans, during the EPO-era, why did EPO not work the same way for majority of athletes from rich first world nations, the top non-Africans? The answers seem to range to a collection of all kinds of excuses, new novel hypotheses, and personal attacks.How can anyone assume as established fact that "EPO works like East Africans the same as everyone else", and ignore that the largely universal historical results of "everyone else" during the EPO-era were unimpressive, both in quantity, and quality?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Exactly. He shifts arguments, frames of reference, etc. whenever it suits his argument. Extremely inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.

Despite proclaiming over years and years that statistics support his point, he has yet to provide a single statistic to back up his point.

rekrunner wrote:

My arguments and frames of reference have been pretty static. You keep shifting the argument to individuals, and I shift it back to looking at top results across large populations.

Well... but then you make such crazy assumptions such as that the non-Africans competed clean during the 80s and exceptions such as that women and walkers are not to be considered.

rekrunner wrote:

So then what is possible? With large populations, we can get overcome individual variations, and look for trends. If EPO use is rampant, virtually undetectable, powerful, and universally effective, we should be able to see some impact on top race times in the aggregate, on large populations, and across many populations, during the EPO-era, versus before and after. Yet we don't observe the same thing across all populations

But we do. Just look at Tucker's graphs for example. Or at the many examples given here, male/female/African/non-African - oh wait, you'd call these examples "individual variations".

You just pretend we don't, for example by postulating that in the 80s in Europe, steroid use was not rampant, virtually untested, powerful, and universally effective.

Your often repeated "argument" that one group of people is currently superior has nothing to do with the effectiveness of EPO:

- if all use it, the best athletes (responders) win;

- if no one uses it, the best athletes win.

You would only have a point there if the currently slower group uses EPO, but the Africans do not.

If only the Africans were using PEDs, then they had an advantage as PEDs are performance enhancing, but then you can't argue that the PEDs such as EPO do not work.

Anyway - talking to you is like talking to a wall...

Wow...that's a long post (boring day?). You're obviously very passionate about your position on this issue, and certainly your research is quite thorough. For me, I'm coming from the standpoint of individual confirmed EPO cases with both sexes where there's sufficient data to examine improvement in times, as well as times ran upon returning from their ban, if applicable. In many of these cases, if they weren't athletes "at the top," they certainly became athletes "at the top" by the use of EPO regardless of ethnicity There's a difference between East & North Africans (i.e., Moroccans in this case), as quite a number of M/F Moroccans over the last 15 yrs or so ago that have been caught 02-vector doping (either EPO positive or ABP sanction). And "in the middle" or somewhere "in the middle" or a step below "top elite," or whatever, makes no difference to me if the athlete received a performance boost from doping.

A couple of the best cases, IMO, for mid-d athletes "at the top," where I think EPO is most effective due to the VO2max dependency of determining success at these distances, is Ramzi, Mourhit, and Jolanda ÄŒeplak.

Ramzi's 3:29.14 PB is 48th all-time fastest. At 22 yoa he was only running 3:44's until he started training with Boulami where he jumped to 3:30 in just 2 yrs. We know during the 05 WCs, where he doubled in the 800/1500, he's running around with off-scores of 157.8 & 148 during the competition. That's plain crazy! And with off-scores like that, he'd have to be using huge amounts of rocket fuel. Btw, a year later he runs his PB of 3:29.14. And lastly, we have his gold winning performance at Beijing followed up by the CERA positive (chalk one up for anti-doping or people would be arguing that he's real deal 😁).

Mourhit's PB of 12:49.71 is 25th all-time fastest. He shows several years prior of running in the 13:10 or so range, and suddenly jumps to his PB in less than 2 yrs. After his EPO ban, he was never close to sub-13 again (can't imagine why).

Ceplak has an eye-opening PB of 1:55.19, which is 17th all-time! Maybe she was also using steriods, but we really don't know since her positive was for EPO in 2002, right during the peak of the EPO-era. Ceplek also returned to competition after her ban in 07, and was never the same running in the 2:04 - 2:07 range (funny how that happens).

And we don't have the baseline hematological values or VO2max's of these athletes. There's always individual variation based on dosage and response. But in these particular cases, there's no denying that EPO had a significant impact on their improvement & success...putting them "at the top." Rocket fuel game changer for some...as the saying goes.

EPO may be effective to a certain degree for any elite endurance athlete, but significant improvements are probably based on those with lower baseline Hct's. In the pre-passport days, where athletes could go full-throttle 02-vector doping, there would be a big difference between an athlete boosting from say 40 to 55 vs 48 to 55 (i.e., "high-responder."). Maybe the Ramzi's, Mourhit's & Ceplak's of the world all had very low baseline values to start with. And as you know there are no studies, nor will there ever be with elites, so we're left to debate anecdotal evidence.

Canova talks about EPO not working for top East Africans, living and training at altitude. I assume he's referring in part to the higher hematological values that altitude-natives have? If so, they no longer have that hematological advantage at sea level. Ashenden et al shows that the hematological values of Kenyan elites drop significantly over a 7 - 14 day acclimatization period at sea level:

rekrunner wrote:

Did Eddy H improve?

Folks, don't feed the toll.

Real World Analysis wrote:

Mourhit's PB of 12:49.71 is 25th all-time fastest. He shows several years prior of running in the 13:10 or so range, and suddenly jumps to his PB in less than 2 yrs. After his EPO ban, he was never close to sub-13 again (can't imagine why).

This is one of the problems when one focuses too much on only one distance. Believing that your narrative is correct, Mourhit wasn't doping in 1997. Still he was capable of 1:00.18 half marathon and 7:34 3000m times which are elite results (equivalents of ~2:05-2:06 at marathon, ~13:00 at 5000m), making his improvement from 1997 to 2000 in the range of some 1.5 %. One could even debate whether 13:06.20 (1998) and 13:05.49 (1997) 5000m times are "in the 13:10 or so range".

Honestly, when the guy was only 20 in 1991, he could still be 31th at mile (3:56) and 50th at 1500m (3:37) in the yearlist, a full decade before he made his 5000m PB. Regardless of how much weight one puts to the advantage he got from rEPO, that shows talent from early on. Or are you claiming that with those times he Iznogoud?

The assumption about the prevalence of steroid use in the '80s and the relevance to an EPO-era discussion is entirely yours.

You seem to be trying to argue it's normal we don't see any EPO-impact in non-Africans because the positive impact of EPO cancels the negative impact of withdrawing the use of blood doping and steroids.

You seem to be the only one putting this "steroid/blood-doping replaced with EPO cancels each other" argument forward, and the only one standing behind it.

But, in any case, this never really addressed anything I've said. Rather than a disagreement, this looks like a concession -- you agree with, and are arguing for, my observation that we don't observe any EPO-impact in the EPO-era for non-African athletes. This argues against any claim that EPO is a "game changing" endurance drug, because the game didn't change, for these non-Africans. In this scenario, the assumed power of EPO, is equal to the assumed power of steroids/blood-doping. You've justified one assumption by making a new assumption.

This separates you from others, who argue that EPO actually worked for Hesch, Lombard, Hellebuyck, and strained arguments that they are also elite "top" athletes, because Hesch would place 40th at Boston, or because Lombard almost equalled the 1973 British record, or because Hellebuyck almost PR'd as a master.

If you want to talk about women and race walkers, go ahead -- my arguments and observations about men in distance running events are limited to what we see, and don't see, for men in distance running events.

Ah, but we don't. What happens when we create Tucker's graphs for Americans/Europeans/Australians/New Zealanders/Russians/Japanese/etc? We don't observe the same thing across most populations. I find this odd, for a universally powerful, available, undetectable drug that had an era named after it.

Did I postulate that? Again, the assumption of the prevalence of steroid use, the effectiveness of steroids in distance events, and the relevance to an EPO discussion is entirely yours. These assumptions largely lack any basis.

When I talk about EPO and East African superiority, it is to argue that a globally effective drug like EPO is a particularly bad explanation for the superiority of this narrow population. Like you say "one group of people is currently superior has nothing to do with the effectiveness of EPO".

This could only make sense if, for a period of two decades, only East and North Africans took EPO, while the "top" non-Africans did not.

This kind of near global abstention, for two decades, has never been observed in any other sports, and contradicts some popular assumptions about human nature, and their tendency to cheat to win at all costs.

Ditto.

I agree. And there are other distances with Mourhit that we can look at, but the 5000 appears to be his biggest jump in performance in a relatively short period. First, on the 3000 you referenced: He improves ~6 secs from the 7:32 in 99 to the sizzling 7:26.62 ran a year later, which is currently 12th fastest all-time! Post-ban (a short 2 yr ban) he runs a remarkably slow 8:04 (2004). Maybe he was injured, or coming back from an injury and not up to full speed on his return to competition, but who really knows. Nonetheless, it's a far cry from his rocket fueled mid-7's late-90s pre-ban times.

On his 5000, we have the jump from 13:06 (98) to the 12:49 (00), which coincides with the time period of the jump in the 3000. His PBs in the 3 & 5 are in 2000, which is 2 yrs shy from his EPO positive. Coincidence? And these two disciplines happen to be right smack in the VO2max dependent distances.

One other note on the 5000; he had a big ~5% jump in one year (96 - 97) where he went from 13:46 to 13:05. So, he may have been doping as early as 96 (I realize he ran some 13:30ish times before that). As you're aware, there was no test and this was start of the start of the EPO abuse period in endurance sport. And his fastest post-ban 5000 time of 13:11 is no where close to his two fastest sub-13 times pre-ban (12:49/12:58). Only his half-marathon times show any consistency pre & post-ban.

No...I'm not claiming that he wasn't any "goud." Lol. Regardless of talent shown at an early age, I think the evidence shows he received a significant "boost" from rHuEPO in the 3000 & 5000 distances. Honestly, 12th & 25th all-time fastest within 2 yrs of testing positive...C'mon man. But the one thing I really what to know is if Mourhit experienced Hesch's euphoric feeling of being like a "Kenyan floatng down the road," because he sure ran like one 😁.

You seem to be convinced that all of Mourhit's improvement was PED-fueled, but apparently even you have troubles really establishing just exactly when this "high responder" succumbed to rEPO-use.

This is how I see the issue.

Mourhit's 1991 time 3:37.73 for 1500m is roughly equivalent of 13:20 for 5000m. When we keep this in mind and compare the 1991 time to his PBs, his "improvement" is around 4 %. How much of that is PED-fueled is another matter, because:

1) He had still at least some room for natural improvement after 1991 and there were some minor technological innovations.

2) Due to several factors (weather conditions, competitors, draft etc), there is always some variance in performances, so his best performance (ie. PB) would almost certainly be improved post-1991 had there been no "real" improvement in his capabilities nor in equipment in the 1990s.

In addition, he performed still well even at shorter distances after his ban. He had 13:11 time at 5k just some two-and half months before his 35th birthday in 2005, when the M35 WR for 5000m was only ten seconds faster. Perhaps he continued the PED-use after the ban, who knows.

Nonsense. Steroid ero and epo era are historical facts. Don't pretend that I made those up, and then everyone including Tucker copied them from me.

Nonsense. I just reminded you of the fact that you compare drug infested times with drug infested times, to then claim that EPO barely works for Europeans - excluding Paula - because of the small increases during the EPO times. And sometimes, depending on your mood, you go so far to claim that there were no improvements in the EPO era, and therefore EPO doesn't work. Even Canova doesn't go so far.

In other words, you have the most extreme position of them all, and try to defend them by artificially decreasing your sample size. Walkers don't count, Africans don't count, women don't count - in a thread about a female EPO user, right? Or are you denying that too?

Nonsense. I merely explained why the Africans improved more in the 90s than the Europeans, as their situation was - historical fact - quite different in the 80s.

Could you please troll a bit less obviously? I look bad when I keep responding to such ludicrous statements.

Haha dang

Down goes Jemima Sumgong wrote:

bye bye

Yes sir

And you seem to believe that most or all of Mourhit's improvement was "not" PED-fueled.

He already ran a 5000 in 91 at 13:29, so fairly close to the predicted "13:20." However, you're ignoring the rest of the story. He slows down considerbly over the next several yrs running 13:47 in 93, and 13:46 in 96. Strange, when you would think there would be some steady improvement from his initial 91 time. Then we see the huge ~5% jump from 96 - 97 (13:46 - 13:05), where, IMO, he started high-octaned doping with EPO. Perhaps his coaches/doping doctors realized they had a high responder and it was full-throttle from that point onwards with adjustments over the years and targeting races culminating with that sizzling 12:49.

C'mon man. He didn't improve after 91, he regressed significantly over the next several years until that explosion from 96 to 97. And just what are these "minor technological innovations?" Lighter weight spikes? Aerodynamic shorts/singlet? Lap counter on running watches? 😁. Not buying it - high-octane doping at work here with good responder. In fact, many Moroccan distance runners were testing positive right & left for EPO during that same time period (e.g., Boulami, Kaouch, Hachlaf, Selsouli, Leghzaoui...just to name a few). Either doping doctors sleeping on the job or they were pushing high dosages for long periods of time 🤔.

This is another suspicious deal. He first race back from the ban was a 13:44 (2004). Almost one (1) year later to the day at the same venue (Huesden-Zolder, Belgium), he runs 13:05. I don't believe we have to put to much thought into this one 😉

While there are undoubtedly some strange-looking fluctuations in his performances when one focuses on Mourhit's annual bests, if one takes into account the following, guy barely 20 years old improving 4 % in ten years isn't totally unusual:

- Mourhit started endurance running at relatively old age of 18, so he had still room to improve.

- He had won the 20 Kilomètres de Paris road run in 1990 only a few days after his 20th birthday.

- An in addition of being roughly 13:20 caliber 5K runner in 1991, he also won the Moroccan National 1500m championship a year later (the time was mediocre 3:41).

There is always some technological innovations in equipment plus improving runners have better access to them when they climb the performance ladder. I find these improvements minor, but the same isn't necessarily true about the draft effect, when there was the real mania to break the 5000m records in during the latter part of 1990s.

There exists even a well-known reason why the performances and even the record of Mourhit's performances is so fractionary between 1993-1996. His other leg was almost two centimeters shorter than the other one which caused recurrent injuries and it took a while before this was diagnosed. This is referred in many places and it adds to the credibility to the story that it was brought up as early as 1997 before Festina affair during the era of innocence when rEPO accusations were almost nonexistent:

http://archives.lesoir.be/mohammed-mourhit-couleur-locale_t-19970731-Z0E19P.html

In the Moroccan championship records there is also an interesting clue that the IAAF website information doesn't tell always the whole picture. For instance, you state that Rashid Ramzi made the mysterious improvement from 3:45 to 3:29 from 2002 onwards, but he was actually the 2001 Moroccan 1500m champion with the time of 3:41.5, so Ramzi's real improvement from 2001 until 2004 in more in the range some 4 % in three years.

http://www.gbrathletics.com/nc/mar.htm

In the end, I have not the slighest idea just how much rEPO enhanced Mourhit's performance. The fact of you flip-flopping on just when he Mourhit entered the program (1996? 1997? 1998?) and on whether he continued the rEPO use after his ban shows that you had no clue at least when you brought up his name the first time.

I agree it isn't totally unusual. But in his case there are some significant improvements in his performance that occur in a relatively short time frame. First, the 13:06 (98) to the 12:49 (00) coincides with the exact time period of the jump in his 3000 times. His PBs in the 3 & 5 are in 2000, which is a little less than 2 yrs shy of his EPO positive. To put it into perspective he goes from 850th all-time fastest (13:06.20) to 25th all-time (12:49.71). Nothing to see there?

Secondly, the 41 second improvement in less than year from 96 - 97 is suspicious. He may have very well initiated his high-octane program at that period of time, realized he was a good responder, and continued progressing under the guidance of his coaches/doping doctors. I don't think there's anything too unusual with that methodolgy during the EPO-era where many athletes get referrals from their coaches to consult with doping doctors when starting a program.

Mourhit's also listed as 5' 7" 141 lbs making him only 1 of 2 runners at 140 lbs or greater to ever run sub-13 (the other is Mark Bett @ 5' 10" 141). That's a lot of weight Mourhit has packed on his short frame to be running world-class 5000 times without his EPO assistance.

Ramzi again? That's laughable. IMO, he's one of the top male beneficiaries of high-octane doping in terms of not only significant improvements in his 1500 time, but winning medals in the Olympics/WCs (3 gold/1 silver). The 3:44 time comes from his IAAF profile & the Guardian article that states that at 22 yoa he was already considered an "also ran on the circuit." He ran 3:44 in 02, then started training with Boulami where he jumped to 3:30 in just 2 yrs --- a ~6% improvement. We know from the IAAF report that during the 05 WCs, where he doubled in the 8/15, he's running around with off-scores of 157.8 & 148 during the competition. And with off-scores like that, he'd have to be using huge amounts of rocket fuel. Lol. Btw, a year later he runs his PB of 3:29.14 (48th all-time fastest), and picks-up a silver in the 15 at the 07 WCs. Lastly, we have his gold winning performance at Beijing followed up by the CERA retro-positive from an IC sample (chalk one up for anti-doping or people would be arguing that he's the real deal 😄).

No, I'm not flip-flopping. I originally posted the time line on his 2 yr improvement from 13:06 to 12:49 (within 2 yrs of his positive), that puts him at the 25th all-time fastest. Your rebuttal was to reference his 3:56 mile in 91, implying that EPO would have had little effect on his future improvements. In pointing out his 41 second improvement in less than a year later on in his career (96), I feel that's another piece of evidence to look at. It would be nice if Mourhit revealed when he entered his program, but dopers don't seem to want to talk about stuff like that much.

As I have stated, Mourhit's improvement between 1997 and 2000 is some 1.5 % depending on the emphasis one puts into Mourhit's 5000m, half marathon and 3000m times. And when one looks at the PB, there is always some improvement bias, as the PB looks always the best, because it is the best by definition and there is always some improvement when it is compared to other performances.

"Maybe he was injured, or coming back from an injury and not up to full speed on his return to competition, but who really knows". That is how you hypothesized the 2004 bad performances of Mourhit. It is telling that you can't address the plausible and decently well documented "short leg" phenomenon for his bad performances between 1993 and 1996. On the other hand, why to ruin a good narrative.

My argument was that his improvement was 4 percent between 2001 and 2004, assuming that the Moroccan National championships time is sound (I find very little incentives for anyone to make it up). Your incapability to address the issue and escaping into your narrative and into the "barely relevant references" to the OFF-scores makes it clear that you didn't either read or understand the point.

The proof that athletes doped is actually only red herring in this discussion, it adds zero weight into your argument that rEPO makes miraculous transformations. I haven't disputed a second that rEPO use was endemic from 1990s onward and the misuse of the substance can still be quite prevalent. I haven't disputed that both of the people discussed here were dopers and it is good that there were disciplinary measures taken against them.

If you only stuck to historical facts, I would not respond. Your arguments, novel hypotheses, and other explanations seem to contain as much fiction as fact.

The steroid era did exist in the ’80s, mainly for sprints, and power events, especially for the women.

The EPO era did exist, most notably in cycling.

You are the only one linking steroids to distance performances in the ’80s.

You are the only one saying the reason non-Africans did not benefit from EPO, is that they really did, but they stopped taking steroids, so we just don’t see it.

When Ross Tucker talks about steroids in the ’80s, he points us to records still surviving from the ‘80s: namely women’s sprint and power events, and the men’s discus.

When you read this thread and others, everyone else describes EPO as a “game changer”, or as a “high octane” drug, or talk about the "synergistic effects" of “EPO + steroids” in “high responders”.

You tell us, in a new theory unique to you, that it is not much different than “low octane” steroids in the ‘80s.

When you drift so far away from historical facts, and you tend to drift farther than everyone else, no one else is copying you.

We’ve seen Paula’s blood values — the “pseudo-experts” here have concluded they do not indicate EPO. Only you said that 2012 indicated EPO use, while initial “pseudo-experts” said this value was the least suspicious.

I claimed, that for whatever reasons, we have not seen EPO working for Europeans (and all non-Africans) at the top, for all distance events for two decades. The exceptions are very small in both quantity and quality.

“Little progress” or “no progress” doesn’t depend on my mood, but the event and the country. Generally when we look at progressions of non-Africans to 2009, compared to the pre-EPO 1985, it ranges from 0-1% across the board, for all distance events, for two decades, with the exception of the half marathon. Compare this to the 4-6%, across the board, by hundreds of East Africans and tens of Moroccans for the same time period, and estimates here that EPO should provide up to 6% improvements in high responders.

Looking specifically at USA for 10000m, the only Americans running faster than Mark Nenow’s 27:22 were East African Americans Meb (Eritrean) and Abdi (Somalian). Then, after the ABP in 2009, only Solinsky and Rupp start running faster. Worldwide, no non-African ran sub-27:00 until Solinsky in 2010, while East Africans broke 27 in 1993.

This is not a cherry-picked, but nearly universal observation for two decades for all distance events.

If a high-octane endurance running drug, bringing up to 6% benefit existed, top athletes representing 85% of the global population either were not high responders, or showed amazing restraint to not even try it, unlike cyclists, while East Africans were “changing the game”. I find either scenario “ludicrous”.

It’s sad, in a kind of pathetic way, to see you write I’m artificially decreasing sample size. My claims of non-performance come from historical performance data for a period of over two decades, for the fastest performers. It includes all performances over two decades.

When I’m making specific observations about the dearth of performance improvements of non-African males, women and Africans cannot be intellectually honestly held up as exceptions.

On the contrary, lumping women, especially women known to take EPO and steroids, and race walkers in with the men, artificially skews any statistics about the prevalence of blood doping among top podium finishers.

It would be interesting to see a more complete breakdown of the Sunday Times collection of “suspicious” statistics for podium finishers, if we removed the Russian (and other Eastern) women, and race-walkers, to get a sense of how much the overall prevalence drops for the rest of the population.

I would be happy to include the women, but in their own context. As we have seen from the ‘80s steroids records, women are high responders to steroids.

If we had more data, I would be happy to include the East Africans and North Africans too. I only broke non-Africans out, NOT to draw doping conclusions about East and North Africans, but to look at claims that East Africans respond to EPO like “everyone else” in the context of “everyone else”.

Again, you stand alone, offering this unique explanation.

I note here that we can see as early as 1981, Kenya and Ethiopia starting to dominate cross-country. Ethiopia beat a strong US team, and Kenya placed third. Non-African nations have never recovered.

While you argue here that East Africans were at war, or were starving, and didn’t take steroids in the ‘80s, others have asked me, how do I know they weren’t already doping in 1981 too?

You have no clue how much restraint of shown to remain polite. I agree you look bad when responding, but don’t blame that on me. If anything I feel like I’ve artificially increased your credibility, by responding to you, not having learned the lesson offered by Lord Robert May.

She is innocent until proven guilty. You shouldn't just blame all Kenyans just because of this one test.

Maybe it was sabotage from other villages who are jealous of her success and money. We don't know all the details yet.

Maybe someone on her team was desperate to produce faster times and then hired outside help from a 3rd party. She may be totally innocent and did not knowingly use the drug. We have to go by the evidence here. If she was given EPO by a white guy like from Balco, then maybe it was based on false results based on Western athletes. In this event, the EPO wouldn't have had any effect on an elite African runner. The fact is that you have no first hand data. You weren't there with a stopwatch to measure her times.