A closer look at EPO-era performances

On a side note, cause you've just reminded me, I was always sceptical about Paula Radcliffe's supposedly 'scientific' approach in the run up to Athens. If she had actually read "Lore of Running" back in 2002 she would never have entered the marathon in 2004. The book observed that above certain temperatures, such as the ones she would almost certainly face in Athens, tall marathoners couldn't compete with shorter ones. I can't remember why, what the height cut-off was or how the author figured it all out, so that isn't much help, but it was based on all the marathon race data up until that point. I remember thinking what the hell is she doing? We all know how it turned out.

pariah wrote:

What's up with this? wrote:

0/10

What's up with this? Well, you are trolling in response to a reasonable reply. If you think 'everyone is at it' then, you are a conspiracy hypothesist.

C'mon man....Jama Aden?

I'm not sure what "sample" you think is under discussion, and what "deductions" I'm asking you to draw. A few points for clarification: - I did not perform an experiment or a trial, but reviewed a complete set of historical performance data (to the degree that one website is complete) - The quality and quantity measures are not samples, but aggregate descriptions, with 100% statistical certainty, of two characteristics of performance in that database, for the respective historical performances measured. - The only thing we really know about the performances are times. With rare exceptions, there is no way of knowing, which performances are EPO-aided, nor how much it really helped. By the same token, this applies to all drugs and methods, and to both pre- and post-1990 performances. We simply don't know who took what, when they started, doses, timing, how much it helped, or how much "clean" substitutes, like better training and altitude would have helped. - For summary statements about historical performances, like quality, and quantity, there is no statistical uncertainty, or question of statistical significance. They are true measures of the whole population of the database, with no wiggle room for interpretation. - But, for any assertion about EPO, since we cannot identify which performances are EPO-aided, and for the performances we do know are EPO aided, we have no real model to measure the true impact of EPO, alone or in combination with other drugs, to measure a true effect, every statement about EPO will be based on the validity of assumptions and correct application of logic. Having said that, I guess the issue could be viewed as "whether the sample is large enough to allow deductions to be drawn with statistical meaning" -- we don't know if the "EPO-aided sample size" is 0% or 100% of the performance samples. While not wrong, it actually seems like an odd thing to say. This is not comparable to your earthquake example, or coin-flipping examples. It is clear we cannot look only at historical performance summary data, and draw "deductions with statistical meaning" about EPO effect -- it is simply not possible without more information about the use of EPO within these performances. So why did I even collect and characterize performance data -- if I know it can say nothing reliably about EPO? With an "EPO works for elites" hypothesis, there are many assumptions, not all of them held by everyone to the same degree. From these assumptions, combined with other external realities, we can logically come up with some expectations, and predictions. While we cannot know about each individual performance, sometimes trends, averages, and other summary data can be strong indications and sources of inference, or drawing correlations. From these predictions, we can look at real historical data, to see if our expectations from our assumptions matches real world observations. If there are discrepancies, deviations, or contradictions, we must refine our hypothesis, refine or add to our assumptions, or even finally reject some. So for me, this is really not an "EPO works" or "EPO doesn't work" debate. Given what we know, and what we don't know, this can go 100 or 1000 different ways. Rather, it is a challenge to everyone to consider the basis for their EPO beliefs and any prejudices and to reflect if their assumptions are indeed coherent with observed historical reality, in light of the fact that we can find, with 100% certainty, such a large population, showing very little improvement, in both quantity and quality, despite the presence and promises of EPO, the universal availability and undetectability, for so long, and general human nature to win, sometimes at all costs. The "EPO works for elites" would be more compelling if we saw large performance improvements across the board, to reflect the availability and undetectability of EPO for decades. But we don't, and by a lot. Based on their reputation with EPO abuse, I expected Spain to stand out from the rest of "5 continents". They were a small factor in 3000m, but otherwise, hardly even qualified to represent "5 continents", let alone be competitive with North and East Africans.

I'm shill here... wrote:

rekrunner wrote:Is the sample set small? As input to this exercise, I used a complete set of performances spanning at least 4 decades. The sample set can hardly be larger.

That is entirely besides the point. The fact you can't produce more data for your experiment has no bearing on whether or not the sample is large enough to allow deductions to be drawn with statistical meaning. I'm sure you must know this...?

summary:

rekrunner wrote:

blah blah blah, im smart, your dumb....EPO doesnt work, empirical evidence is hogwash! my name is gary and im smart, and your dumb EPO doesnt work.

By the same token, everything we believe about "EPO works" is based on a small sample. Is it large enough to allow deductions to be drawn with statistical meaning: - EPO studies are performed on a few subjects not representative of elites, in a state of training that is not representative of best performances. - Anecdotes of known EPO users are really a small sample.

I'm shill here... wrote:

rekrunner wrote:Is the sample set small? As input to this exercise, I used a complete set of performances spanning at least 4 decades. The sample set can hardly be larger.

That is entirely besides the point. The fact you can't produce more data for your experiment has no bearing on whether or not the sample is large enough to allow deductions to be drawn with statistical meaning. I'm sure you must know this...?

another post was deleted when mentioned link between bjaren riis and Kipketer .

you never included 400m or 800m when epo just as effective again .

as just mentioned a great iaaf amb-ass-ador in kipketer and what epo can do in 800m

beyond obvious what is happening there .

and with same connections to supplier as mr 60 per cent at same time ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

got that little scared like many with so called introduction of epo test in 2000

but most had it figured out quite soon and still hit it for remaining years

maybe trained afar but of course cant come into comps risking being as loaded .

unless you are a morrocan , and know how arabs take everything to the extreme .

AS for the 400m you exclude it from the list when where epo first emerged straight from big pharma

before even approved in 80's .

and the first place see it in kenya is in the 400m and national record and afew fast times and 4*400 team in 1991 or so ,

not broken since then says alot when all switched to distances interested in , but with speed peptide and

new interest in event could go soon .

so tell me how is this possible at a time when couldnt just go into a shop or doctor and get pretty easy .

that leaves managers as the sole culprit and there ever lookout for the big and manufactured next star .

saw what epo could do in athletes in states then wanted to see what could do else where.

why dont you just take some and keep a detail journal of your workouts. not only that but have a person with very similar PRs (in your case 28min 5k) and you take EPO and they just take sugar water....8 weeks later show us the results.

my predictions:

1) your training partner runs faster

2) you run slower than you did before you took EPO

my conclusion for these predictions

you run slower cause you are now mindweak and also taking any PED slows you down by like 15% minimum, you buddy runs faster cause he knows your trying to cheat so he is mindstrong and crushes you.

in light of all this you dont have to try this, as you already know EPO and PEDs dont work, so why do you keep harassing all these poor LRers? come on beau go home and get some rest, you are my hero no matter what

In other 9 threads, I was criticized for not providing real data to support my doubts. Now I have. That's new. It is clear that something worked a lot for East Africans, in between for North Africans, and very little for the rest of the world. A global drug seems like a poor explanation for these local differences. I didn't hijack this thread. Here's an idea -- don't read my posts or my threads if it annoys you. I thought you weren't reading them anyway. "EPO works" or "EPO doesn't work" depends a lot on your own personal beliefs and prejudices. I know I cannot change that. I don't have anyone's posts deleted. OK. I'm the one who acts like a 5 year old. I'll work on that. People take it because many people are like you, and believe it works and it's worth the risk. My end game is that everyone becomes smart enough to separate beliefs and prejudices and assumptions from facts and logic. If every runner in the world listened to me, they wouldn't ever take EPO because I would tell them it didn't work for "5 continents" and that they can achieve the same effect with hi-lo training, also proven in studies. This is only for running -- I don't have any advice for cyclists and race walkers. WADA and the IOC should continue to ban EPO because running is not the only Olympic sport. These theories about me being Gary or me being protected or me deleting your posts are also baseless. What is the end game of reflexively linking every fast performance with EPO? This tarnishes reputations without basis, encourages athletes to take EPO, or discourages athletes from the sport, and discourages fans from the sport. All noble goals to be sure. If I SHUT UP about EPO, will everyone else SHUT UP too?

gary why so mad? im on your side man!

im on your side cause either you or the ghost mods got me deleted. so now i see the light, renato is our lord and savior and you gary, you are my soul mate...lets make babies together and spread the EPO DOESNT work gospel far and wide!

PEDs and EPO dont work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the only thing that works is sugar water!!!!

It's the current status -- with surprisingly few details.

What's up with this? wrote:

C'mon man....Jama Aden?

Just saw this -- and couldn't agree more.

amateur wrote:

One more thing before I leave this thread alone. rekrunner has just touched on this. This is

going to come as a shock to some of you so brace yourselves but aside from drugs and genetics

it's possible, just possible that Africans are better at, wait for it, ... running.

rekrunner wrote:

Just saw this -- and couldn't agree more.

amateur wrote:

One more thing before I leave this thread alone. rekrunner has just touched on this. This is

going to come as a shock to some of you so brace yourselves but aside from drugs and genetics

it's possible, just possible that Africans are better at, wait for it, ... running.

Here's a good paper that explores some of the reasons of the East African running success:

rekrunner wrote:

Just saw this -- and couldn't agree more.

amateur wrote:

One more thing before I leave this thread alone. rekrunner has just touched on this. This is

going to come as a shock to some of you so brace yourselves but aside from drugs and genetics

it's possible, just possible that Africans are better at, wait for it, ... running.

1 4:12.56 Svetlana Masterkova RUS 17.01.68 1 Zürich 14.08.1996

2 4:14.30 Genzebe Dibaba (at Sabadell EPO raid hotel) ETH 08.02.91 1 Rovereto 06.09.2016

3 4:15.61 Paula Ivan ROU 20.07.63 1 Nice 10.07.89

4 4:15.63 Yelena Soboleva RUS 03.10.82 Moskva 29.06.2007 (time later removed from list for doping)

5 4:15.8 Natalya Artyomova RUS 05.01.63 1 Leningrad 05.08.1984

6 4:16.05 Genzebe Dibaba (at Sabadell EPO raid hotel) ETH 08.02.91 1 Lausanne 06.07.2017

7 4:16.56 Helen Obiri KEN 13.12.89 1 London 09.07.2017

8 4:16.71 Mary Slaney (banned for elevated testosterone level in 1996) USA 04.08.58 1 Zürich 21.08.1985

9 4:16.71 Faith Kipyegon KEN 10.01.94 1 Bruxelles 11.09.2015

10 4:17.00 Natalya Artyomova RUS 05.01.63 1 Barcelona 20.09.1991

Whoops:

All-time mile list for women:

2 women from Kenya with 7th and 9th place times

1 woman from the USA in 8th (but Ms. Slaney was banned for doping in 1996)

1 woman from Ethiopia with the 2nd and 6th best times (but Genzebe was at the Sabadell hotel with the EPO)

1 woman from Romania in 1989 with the 3rd best time

3 women from Russia with 1st,4th,5th,10th best times

It is obvious that Russian women have absolutely destroyed the all the milers from Kenya and Ethiopia.

rekrunner wrote:

Just saw this -- and couldn't agree more.

amateur wrote:

One more thing before I leave this thread alone. rekrunner has just touched on this. This is

going to come as a shock to some of you so brace yourselves but aside from drugs and genetics

it's possible, just possible that Africans are better at, wait for it, ... running.

So now the foundational claim is "Africans are better at running than others, therefore there's no evidence EPO is effective"?

That's brilliant.

Kind of like "Rich people don't bother stealing because they can't spend stolen money," or something.

The weird thing is that rekrunner isn't here trying to sow doubt because he's related to Paula or has a professional interest in the matter. I think he's just one of those strange dudes who hates the way that cheating throws a monkey wrench into a sport he enjoys following, so he tries to rationalize away the effects of doping so he can keep following the sport with the same zeal. I've seen similar approaches by generally smart people in other areas.

Populist Demagogue Iconic Hero wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Just saw this -- and couldn't agree more.

So now the foundational claim is "Africans are better at running than others, therefore there's no evidence EPO is effective"?

That's brilliant.

Kind of like "Rich people don't bother stealing because they can't spend stolen money," or something.

The weird thing is that rekrunner isn't here trying to sow doubt because he's related to Paula or has a professional interest in the matter. I think he's just one of those strange dudes who hates the way that cheating throws a monkey wrench into a sport he enjoys following, so he tries to rationalize away the effects of doping so he can keep following the sport with the same zeal. I've seen similar approaches by generally smart people in other areas.

Gary rekrunner has always been assertive on this issue. There's been several threads on EPO effectiveness going back a few years (e.g. EPO & middle-distance) where rekrunner has hit it pretty hard. Last year was the Sumgong EPO thread where he & Conova were hitting it pretty hard in terms of undermining the performance benefits that Sumgong received from EPO (i.e., nothing to see there). And if another high-profile athlete is popped for EPO or sanctioned for hematological anomalies in their passport, the whole thing will start all over again.

Que Sera Sera.....

Same as it ever was... wrote:

Gary rekrunner has always been assertive on this issue. There's been several threads on EPO effectiveness going back a few years (e.g. EPO & middle-distance) where rekrunner has hit it pretty hard. Last year was the Sumgong EPO thread where he & Conova were hitting it pretty hard in terms of undermining the performance benefits that Sumgong received from EPO (i.e., nothing to see there). And if another high-profile athlete is popped for EPO or sanctioned for hematological anomalies in their passport, the whole thing will start all over again.

Que Sera Sera.....

Well, I can understand Canova's obscurantism and lying because he's required to keep up the facade in order to remain viable in the sport he's ratfcked so nicely along with some of his countrymen and a few Spaniards.

But no one should listen to either one of these two dinks. We know EPO's physiological mechanism of action, and we know a significant number of people who have improved from being very good to being outrageously good while taking it, ceteris paribus (or as close as anyone can get in a real-life "experiment"). Everything they say about not knowing the precise percentile improvements in a given person or not having a big enough sample of confirmed users is just sheer noise and both of them should be laughed into oblivion every time they start in. Canova will be remembered, not that far into the future, chiefly as a steward of cheating and lying, not as a coach.

The Chinese women from 1993 also destroy ALL of the Kenyan and Ethiopian women in all of human history.

Renato said that he thought that Wang Junxia was just a great natural talent who was CLEAN.

The Chinese women from 1993 have the top 6 times and 10 of the top 20 times of all-time for 3000m.

The Chinese women would have changed the top of the 5000m all-time list... if they had run 5000m instead of 3000m in 1993.

Paula was faster at 3000m and 5000m (14:29.11 vs 14:29.32) than the Russian EPO doper Olga Yegorova ...but Paula was destroyed by 9 Chinese times... which were all set in 1993, and by the Russian DOPER Liliya Shobukhova (14:23.75) It is just a coincidence.

1 8:06.11 Wang Junxia CHN 09.01.73 1 Beijing 13.09.1993 (equivalent to around 14:03 for 5000m)

2 8:12.18 Qu Yunxia CHN 25.12.72 2 Beijing 13.09.1993 (equivalent to around 14:13 for 5000m)

3 8:12.19 Wang Junxia CHN 09.01.73 1h2 Beijing 12.09.1993 (14:13 equivalent for 5000m)

4 8:12.27 Qu Yunxia CHN 25.12.72 2h2 Beijing 12.09.1993 (14:13 equivalent for 5000m)

5 8:16.50 Zhang Linli CHN 06.03.73 3 Beijing 13.09.1993 (14:21 equivalent for 5000m)

6 8:19.78 Ma Liyan CHN 03.11.68 3h2 Beijing 12.09.1993 (14:27 equivalent for 5000m)

7 8:20.68 Helen Obiri KEN 13.12.89 1 Ad-Dawhah (Qatar?) 09.05.2014 (14:28 equivalent for 5000m)

8 8:21.14 Mercy Cherono KEN 07.05.91 2 Ad-Dawhah 09.05.2014

9 8:21.26 Ma Liyan CHN 03.11.68 4 Beijing 13.09.1993

10 8:21.42 Gabriela Szabo ROU 14.11.75 1 Monaco 19.07.2002

11 8:21.64 Sonia O'Sullivan IRL 28.11.69 1 London 15.07.1994

12 8:21.84 Zhang Lirong CHN 03.03.73 5 Beijing 13.09.1993

13 8:22.06 Zhang Linli CHN 06.03.73 1h1 Beijing 12.09.1993

14 8:22.20 Paula Radcliffe GBR 17.12.73 2 Monaco 19.07.2002

15 8:22.22 Almaz Ayana ETH 21.11.91 1 Rabat 14.06.2015

16 8:22.34 Almaz Ayana ETH 21.11.91 1 Zürich 03.09.2015

17 8:22.44 Zhang Lirong CHN 03.03.73 2h1 Beijing 12.09.1993

18 8:22.62 Tatyana Kazankina RUS 17.12.51 1 Leningrad 26.08.1984

19 8:23.11 Almaz Ayana ETH 21.11.91 1 Ad-Dawhah 06.05.2016

20 8:23.14 Helen Obiri KEN 13.12.89 1 Monaco 21.07.2017

21 8:23.23 Edith Masai KEN 04.04.67 3 Monaco 19.07.2002

22 8:23.26 Olga Yegorova RUS 28.03.72 1 Zürich 17.08.2001 (14:33 equivalent for 5000m)

5000m all-time list with Chinese 5000m equivalent times from 1993:

1 14:03 Wang Junxia CHINA 1993

2 14:11.15 Tirunesh Dibaba (at Sabadell EPO hotel) ETH 01.06.85 1 Oslo 06.06.2008

3 14:12.59 Almaz Ayana (managed by Jos Hermens) ETH 21.11.91 1 Roma 02.06.2016

4 14:12.88 Meseret Defar (on leaked atypical ABP list) ETH 19.11.83 1 Stockholm 22.07.2008

5 14:13 Qu Yunxia CHINA 1993

6 14:13 Wang Junxia CHINA 1993

7 14:13 Qu Yunxia CHINA 1993

8 14:14.32 Almaz Ayana (managed by Jos Hermens) ETH 21.11.91 1 Shanghai 17.05.2015

9 14:15.41 Genzebe Dibaba (also at Sabadell EPO hotel) ETH 08.02.91 1 Saint-Denis 04.07.2015

10 14:16.31 Almaz Ayana (managed by Jos Hermens) ETH 21.11.91 1 Rabat 22.05.2016

Ouch.

It looks like a DOPING LIST.

It is just a coincidence.

So the case has been building against Paula Radcliffe over the years, with small leaks here and there... reminds me a little of Carl Lewis and his career...

So we have her on two counts - 1) HGH use and her constant reference to it as an athlete and 2) blatant EPO use once the bio passport evolved.

I would love to know what drugs she was on... the Lance Armstrong-type... only reserved for the uber-white and rich. I think the tipping point will come in about a decade.

After reviewing all this data, Paula Radcliffe stands out as the #1 doper of all-time. The GOAT.

Uber-white and rich???

It is an interesting coincidence that there is never a comment by rojo or wejo on any of the Paula Radcliffe Brit-Doper-Cheater-Liar-Fraud threads. It is always rekrunner, casual obsever, Mr. Obvious, Subway Surfers Addiction, etc., etc, etc...

Do you (or rekrunner) have any idea why that is?

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2003/04/escorting-paula/