I believe I have already addressed all these points over time. I think a diminishing returns model makes the most sense, so slower runners (like the ones in EPO studies) would be able to gain more, particularly if their instant level of fitness, and their training is not optimal. Renato suggested that EPO can quickly bring you to 90%, but not more. I haven't ruled that out, but my mind is open enough to accept the possibility that EPO could bring you up to 101%. 1) Athletes don't wait for a proven benefit, but act on belief - belief that EPO can potentially provide, or is necessary to provide, some benefit, even a small one. Athletes who take EPO are not scientists, requiring any burden of proof. Even the smallest marginal benefit, when races or podiums are lost by split seconds, would be worth the risk to some athletes. Belief can also be from the coach, husband, agent, doctor, sponsor, etc. 2) Belief again. Or their own self-interest over their athletes long term success. 3) Cycling and running, while both "endurance events", are very different. One main difference is that most top riders (e.g. frequent statistics like 7 out of top 10) are known to have taken EPO, or transfusions, or otherwise linked to doping -- which is not the case for most top runners (with statistics like 3 out of top 30, so we can include Sumgong, or 2 out of top 100). This could be just evidence of a stronger belief, but if you want to make a "proof by anecdote", the case in cycling is way more compelling than running, where we often appeal to case histories outside the top 1000, like Lombard, Hesch, and Hellebuyck. This suggests that if EPO helps, it is not by factors common to running and cycling, but by some other mechanisms that favors cycling. What is the measured effect in cycling? What was the world record in the Tour de France in 1985? What is it today? How many cycling world records did Lance Armstrong break? By how much? 3%? 6%? We don't measure running and grand tour cycling "performance" and "effect" of drugs, the same way. Physiologically the events are different. Running has an elastic component, that can be a major limiting factor, compared to cycling. Improving O2 delivery doesn't address that. Cycling has teams and loyal soldiers to preserve their leader's strength and prolong their endurance, sacrificing the soldiers and saving their captains for the finish -- would Lance have won any Tour de France on his own, the way Greg Lemond won over Hinault, or Contador over Lance, in the face of team adversity? I'm not even sure that a doped Lance, without his teammates, is better than a clean Lemond, in a head to head competition. How does EPO work in cycling? By which mechanism? Does it only increase O2 delivery to the muscles? VO2max is approximately an all out effort for 11 minutes, plus or minus. How does increasing O2 delivery help win a three week tour, with much of it spent below VO2max, often getting sucked along in the vacuum of the peloton? Does it help in one day events? Cyclists like Tyler Hamilton thought clean riders could win one day events. Running events, up to the marathon, are always one day events, not three week events, with heavy efforts 6 days a week. Does it work best in the grand tours, where thanks to improved recovery from hard efforts, you don't deliver higher efforts than when clean, but you slow down less in the third week? So while EPO might not discriminate against O2 consumption whether it is cycling or running, it might be other mechanisms, like protective or recovery mechanisms, that are significant to cycling. Or not -- maybe Lance's superior leadership, the "professionalism" of forming a team, and forming the best "doping regime" from the best doctor, like Ferrari, provided a substantial psychological boost and edge over other riders.
Inquiry minds want to know wrote:
Your point of contention would be then that EPO is ineffective, or marginally effective with elite distance runners? However, I presume you believe EPO is effective for non-elites in significantly improving performance? (would that be primarily because of a lower baseline VO2max with non-elites vs elites?).
If this is your conclusion, then it begs a couple of important questions:
1) Why have literally dozens of elite runners, some at the top of their discipline tested positive for EP0 or have been sanctioned for ABP hematological anomalies over the last 2 decades? Since anti-doping does not have a 100% detection rate, we can logically conclude many more elites have used EPO and have escaped detection over this time period. This would exponentially increase the number of users...again, why would so many utilize a useless, or at best, marginally effective PED?
2) Since doping doctors and coaches are an integral part of PED use with many elites who cheat, why wouldn't these doctors & coaches realize the ineffectiveness of EPO and not administer it to their athletes, or advise against it's use?
3) How do you explain the contradiction with the effectiveness of EPO in professional cycling? (which has a long & documented abuse history). Both distance running & cycling are endurance sports with demands placed on O2 consumption - why would EPO discriminate between these two endurance sports?
If we are to accept your thesis, so to speak, on the "ineffectiveness of EPO with elite runners," the aforementioned questions must be addressed in order for all of this to make sense.