Why did EPO times peak just before testing was introduced?

Just looking to see earlier if the non-Salazar Oregon athletes like Solinsky were using altitude tents and one of the more interesting debates from old threads was Paula Radcliffe's use of altitude tents. But this raises the interesting argument, if Paula lived/slept constantly at altitude (via the tent), altitude would be a void explanation for the variations in her OFF scores. Now if you were actually Mr Gary Radcliffe, you would be able to shine some light on this new Avenue of discussion. ?

rekrunner wrote:

Everyone knows a lot of non-Africans dope too, yet compared to the 1980's, the best of the rest is less than 1% faster.

EPO doesn't really seem to be that much better than old school blood transfusions, and steroids, unless, apparently, you are a high-altitude adapted athlete.

rEPO is the same as "old school blood transfusions" i.e., O2-vector doping:

I think with the advent of EPO athletes who wouldn't considered blood doping (unless they were a Soviet block athlete and were forced to do so) were willing to try EPO. No complications of blood withdrawl, storage, re-infusion, people involved, etc. Along comes EPO and just a few injections per week over a 3 or 4 month period of time for a cycle. And later comes 3rd gen CERA where one or two injections per month will work - a dopers delight from that standpoint.

What I'm always trying to figure out is why the Moroccans were testing hot right & left once the test became available in 2000. But more importantly those Moroccans testing hot were associated with running very fast times & winning major competitions (e.g., Boulami, Mourhit, Ramzi). Were they getting bad doping advice on glow times? Were they going full-throttle pushing very high doses and glowing right though competitions? Were they not getting any protection on some of their doping positives?

It would be interesting to know what some of their baseline blood values were and how much they were boosting their crit. Ramzi's must have been extremely high with off-scores of 157.8 & 148 recorded on 2 blood draws taken during the 05 WCs where he won double gold. However, the IAAF report on this indicates he tested negative for rEPO and furthermore the report states blood doping was "ruled out." Only after Ramzi used CERA was a retested IC sample hot from Beijing but no less than 21 target tests negative from Helsinki up through that time. Great doping advice until he switched to CERA? Protected status for awhile?

Interesting to say the least.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm still wondering what happened in anti-doping in 2005, that had such a massive deterrent effect, about the same time that legends were retiring from the track, and new replacement talent was going straight to the roads.

Are you referring to the likes of El G who retired at the peak of his earnings potential ($2 million a year BEFORE sydney) in order to avoid the new tests?

Has there ever been a boxer who retired at his peak earning similar amounts, despite the near certainty of further brain damage if he continued?

Yet El G retires when he probably could have made at least $5 million by just going on another year and collecting circuit appearance fees. That in a country where the average wage is about $500 a year.

We know that many of his lesser compatriots and rivals were doping. If he had such a natural advantage over just about the rest of the world he likely would have been able to breeze to the Gold in Beijing even at age 34. The fastest time that year was (2008) 3:31.49, back to times not seen since the 1980s. A 3:26:00 man should be able to run under 3:30 at age 34.

rekrunner wrote:

Yes, I was using your lack of an answer as evidence, and not your question.

But you didn't ask a question, instead you made a bold statement without evidence, for everyone to see, namely

rekrunner wrote:

we don't have athletes today comparable to Geb, Komen, Bekele and El G.

And now you want to view the fact that I questioned your statement as a "lack of an answer", and thus as evidence for the correctness of your statement. Lol. You are getting crazier by the minute in your support of these drug cheats.

Coevett wrote:

We know that many of his lesser compatriots and rivals were doping. If he had such a natural advantage over just about the rest of the world he likely would have been able to breeze to the Gold in Beijing even at age 34. The fastest time that year was (2008) 3:31.49, back to times not seen since the 1980s. A 3:26:00 man should be able to run under 3:30 at age 34.

Exactly. And if he was clean, and his drugged up competition had to dope less, he'd have won in Beijing with his "natural advantage" by an even larger amount as before.

Yes -- the El G that competed internationally starting as a junior in 1992 to 2004, ending on a high note at the 2004 Olympics. That's a pretty long career, where he set a few world records, won many world championships and competed in three Olympics. I don't see any way you can call this retirement after such a lengthy track career "sudden". If he was earning $2 million a year already before Sydney, I guess he was probably set for life by the end of 2004.

My response to the subject question was: "Besides EPO, I would say other significant factors are: 1) we don't have athletes today comparable to Geb, Komen, Bekele and El G." What is the evidentiary bar for a statement preceded by "I would say"? I would say, of all the names you listed, only Kiprop comes close, based on how they dominated against their competitors, and the strength of their competitors, and the length of their years of domination. Some might say Farah qualifies for length of domination, if it wasn't well known that his competition left the track and went to the roads. Who do you mean by "drug cheats", and what is your evidence for such a bold statement?

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Yes, I was using your lack of an answer as evidence, and not your question.

But you didn't ask a question, instead you made a bold statement without evidence, for everyone to see, namely

rekrunner wrote:

we don't have athletes today comparable to Geb, Komen, Bekele and El G.

And now you want to view the fact that I questioned your statement as a "lack of an answer", and thus as evidence for the correctness of your statement. Lol. You are getting crazier by the minute in your support of these drug cheats.

So how do you explain this drop off in talent exactly? That's quite a few names you listed there and not even Kiprop or Farah come close by your own admission. The population of Kenya and Ethiopia has doubled since the 1990s (and the young population probably even more so). The population of Morocco and Algeria have increased by well over 50%. All the reasons the African apologists give for the sudden overwhelming talent from Africa appearing in the 90s are even more evident now, so there should be way more and more El Gs and Bekeles and yet there are none. With the (expected) greater depth of talent and microimprovements in nutrition, tracks, training, shoes etc, you'd expect the 1500m and 5000m WRs to be 3:24 and 12:25 now, yet they're struggling to break 3:30 and 12:55. Isn't the simplest explanation that Africa started dominating in the early 90s because a cheap PED suddenly became available that was far more powerful (for distance running) than anything that had gone before?

Somebody should create a graph of the progression (and retrogression) in yearly best distance times of two groups since the 1960s -a/ British/Australian/New Zealand/American and b/African. Whilst a would be fairly steady until the 1990s when it would level off or even drop a little, Africa would sky rocket in the early 90s then suddenly come back down to Earth in the mid 00s

this would be nice to see, but then people like rekrunner and others would call you a racist. remember EPO doesnt work, rentato said so

I'm sure I said at least 5 times that the money dried up on the track, and the best talent left the track for the roads, or skipped the track completely and went to the roads. Athletes like Farah became the rare exception, because he is subsidized by his country, has a decent contract, and able to command large appearance fees, because he can "beat the Africans" -- the ones still coming to the track. Populations of East Africa were around 4% in 1990, and 5.6% today. North Africa 2.9% in 1990, and 3.1% today. I think the Moroccans got bad advice. While people are struggling to break 3:30 and 12:55 today, on the track, where the money dried up, the marathon times have plummeted. My biggest doubt with your simple PED explanation is that EPO was a global drug, was globally untestable, and highly beatable, over the course of decades, but the great advances in times were not global. If it is so highly effective, then the African success should be repeatable outside of Africa.