Also if my English is not very good, I think I was clear enough in my post.
You start from a thought I never had : that the athletes we are speaking about, Mouhrit and Ramzi, were not doped.
I clearly accepted this as a FACT.
My point is the QUANTIFICATION of the effect of EPO on their performances.
Since many posters go to see times of Mouhrit (as 13'46") and Ramzi (3'44") as their REAL level before doping, and in this way they go to see how much improvement they had at their "doped" peak (12'49" and 3'29"), GIVING THE MERIT TO THIS BIG IMPROVEMENT TO THEIR DOPING ONLY, I went to explain that their situations changed completely from the period of their first performance, for the reasons I clearly wrote.
The second point, when I say that "However, when we discuss HOW MUCH IMPROVEMENT the assumption of EPO produced, the most part of posters continue to do the same mistake, connecting everything with doping only",
is not difficult to understand that I was speaking about the SPECIFIC SITUATIONS of Mouhrit and Ramzi, and the reasons because their training was very poor. And, because of their poor training, their performances were only 13'46" and 3'44".
Do you think that Armstrong (I'm tired to read ALWAYS the name of Lance as example of the effects of PEDs on every improvement : he had advanced technology, scientists behind his doping program, million dollars to use, so it's like speaking about rockets against bikes, when you want to compare his doping and the doping of African runners...), when was a triathlete only, so his training was not specific and not of top quality, could run near the best he reached after doping ? How much Armstrong changed in his training, when he decided to follow a scientific program of doping ? And, if he could train 2 months only every 6 months (what Mouhrit needed to do), do you think he could have performances similar what he had later ? And, in your opinion, the difference in the performances, in this case, was due to the fact he was not doped, or the fact he could not train because some phisical problem ?
What I say is very easy to understand : nobody can give the EXCLUSIVE MERIT of improvement to any type of doping, if doesn't know the difference in the situations of life, health and motivation.
Is not clear enough what I wrote : " About Ramzi, he had two years without any motivation and with very little training, before the offer to change citizenship becoming Bahraini. When Bahrain decided to look at foreigner athletes for creating their National Team, the first step was to look at runners Arabic speaking, so they went to contact Maroccan of second level. Ramzi, followed by Khalid Boulami, had for the first time a salary, and the opportunity to become a "professional" runner. For that reason, he started training very hard, twice every day, when before had no more than 5 sessions per week " ?
And, in this case, which is the reason of your comment :
Question: If Ramzi was training so very hard and is such a natural talent, why in the world did he use CERA? CERA is a 3rd gen potent EPO that only requires once or twice a month dosing for target Hct levels (btw, a few cyclists also got popped for it in 09). As you know, Ramzi's IC sample from Beijing tested positive in Feb/09 when Roach pharmaceuticals assisted WADA in identifying the molecule. It's clear Ramzi was glowing in Beijing when he won gold. Do you think he could have accomplished his gold winning performance without the use of CERA? If his natural ability and new found training that he discovered years earlier allowed him to accomplish all he has done, then why in the heck would he throw it all away on EPO? His positive test had catastrophic consequences; stripped of his Olympic gold and forever embedded in T&F's Hall of Shame. "If" EPO has a marginal effect on elite athletes, as postulated by some experts here, is Ramzi that stupid for taking it and/or his coach(s)/doping doctor(s) that dumb in advising him to take it?
You real didn't want to understand what I wrote. RAMZI DIDN'T TRAIN VERY HARD, but very softly : I clearly explained he had only 5 session per week, and after went to 13 weekly sessions. All your comment is useless, and not connected with what I wrote.
About your last comment, I can explain you because athletes continue to take EPO : BECAUSE THEY THINK CAN GIVE MORE ADVANTAGES THAN WHAT REALLY CAN GIVE, and they believe in this fact because the DOCTORS OF DOPING overrate the effects, IN ORDER TO HAVE A GOOD REASON FOR ASKING MORE MONEY FOR THEY SERVICES.