So is this a new study, on new subjects, or the same five-year old study on the same Kenyans and Scotts that have been discussed extensively, just repackaged and resubmitted? Recall the flaws of the Kenyans and Scotts study: 1) Training was not controlled, including pre-controls 2) There was no control group, so we cannot conclude the role of the intervention (EPO) under observation, and the role of other uncontrolled factors in improving performance Compare this study design to the 1997 Stray-Gundersen study, which included a 6 week pre-training phase BEFORE the intervention, where all subjects improved 2.3%, and included a control group. (There was another problematic issue -- the Texas summer heat). A slightly modified Kenyan and Scottish study with this design would be more conclusive. Still, even with a better design, this does not show: 1) Improved performance beyond a physiological limit 2) Improved performance better than legal methods, like hi-lo altitude training 3) Expected improvement for runners already performing at the elite level
rekrunner wrote:
Is there something new? Did they change the method? How did they address and correct the basic flaws in the previous study?
casual obsever wrote:
No. You evidently haven't looked into this new work. The authors tested 63' half marathoners and 2:12 marathoners. Ok, most of us here are faster, but still, those weren't beginners.
Interestingly, they improved their 3000 m times by 4.6% after 4 weeks of EPO, although the Hct increase was less than 10%. As we know since Ashenden 2011, that modest increase would not have triggered the ABP alarm, i.e. IAAF would not have considered these dopers as "likely doping".