Alex Hutchinson calls out CANOVA over study confirming EPO works on Kenyan runners

What a performance! wrote:

Aragon wrote:

If that reference was an argument against my observation that Baumann had no super-miraculous transformation in the 1990's, I fail too see it, quite to the contrary.

In any case thanks for providing some extra material for my original allegation about his 1990's.

No...see Subway's follow-up post: His last 200 is unbelievable! - he had a lot left in the tank afterwards.

Actually Baumann is a really good example of how dirty the sport was, now let us assume he was clean (ha, funny, great joke) just look at how easily he drops the best Moroccans, Kenyans and Ethiopians at the end. Then fast forward 5 years and just look at how the best athletes from these same countries drop him, when running flat out at the fastest he ever ran and the only difference between time A and time B, is rampant epo abuse.

Aragon wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

I think you are stretching the differences between cycling and running a bit. A major champs for Mo, Bekele, Rupp and others is actually a lot closer to a grand tour. The 10,000m on the first day, 1-2 days recovery the 5,000m heats, 1-2 days...

That is red herring and beside the point that Canova made.

That is because the alleged similarity between major championships in athletics and cycling GTs has pretty much nothing to do with how rHuEPO benefits continuous efforts of different durations and absolutely nothing to do with the WR progression because in endurance events records are broken almost without an exception outside major competitions.

So let's clarify things, on the previous page Renato said epo would only benefit anaerobic events. But I pointed out how pro cyclists had the drug with their cornflakes and were using the drug for purely aerobic events. Then you've jumped in and raised the issue of WR progression and suggested that distance runners doing several events at a major champs is completely different from cycling tours. The truth is epo helps runners go faster and also in an unpaced championship it helps users stay fresher at submaximal pace so they can smack out a last lap in 52, 53, and 54. In short, it just helps.

(Ayana)

Subway Surfers wrote:

So let's clarify things, on the previous page Renato said epo would only benefit anaerobic events. But I pointed out how pro cyclists had the drug with their cornflakes and were using the drug for purely aerobic events. Then you've jumped in and raised the issue of WR progression and suggested that distance runners doing several events at a major champs is completely different from cycling tours . The truth is epo helps runners go faster and also in an unpaced championship it helps users stay fresher at submaximal pace so they can smack out a last lap in 52, 53, and 54. In short, it just helps.

(Ayana)

I specifically avoided making that claim and only pointed out that rHuEPO being used during multiweek tours has pretty much nothing to do with it possibly giving more benefit at longer continuous efforts.

Correct. Not this again. I actually said "or up to 44% or more". And I said "pick whatever doing prevalence you want". I also said 14% was subject to corrections for "false positives" and "false negatives". Even with my statistics background, I cannot make a better estimate without more information.

casual obsever wrote:

Not this again. The authors clearly stated that it was likely more than 44% dopers in Daegu, not less. Of course you could disagree with them, but why do you keep mispresenting them?

Anyway, didn't you say you had a background in statistics? If 14% are likely dopers by a chance of, what, over 99.9%?, how many dopers you estimate are there?

Yes, in 2:11:41, 2:13:16, and again in 2:13:16, if I'm not mistaken, well out of the top-5 European performances before the EPO-era. The goalpost was top times. If you'd like to do a comprehensive WC medal analysis, please feel free to do so.

That IS the top JC on a B wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

In all these doping threads, it doesn't take long for Spain to be mentioned, but their reputation for doping far exceeds their reputation for performing at the top.

They won three straight WC Marathons in the EPO era you goddam moran!

It is nice that people debunk allegations I haven't made and avoid even addressing the real points. I haven't claimed that he was clean or that he didn't benefit from his (presumed) doping regimen, but only pointed the following a few days ago which was and is the crux of my observations about Dieter Baumann:

"... his seasonal best are pretty consistent from the late 1980's until 2002 and at least I can't see any three-four year period when he made a sudden leap where he surpassed his earlier capabilities.

1987 (1500m/3:33)

1989 (1500m/3:36) [indoor]

1992 (5000m/13:09.09)

1995 (5000m/13:01.72)

1997 (5000m/12:54.70)

1999 (5000m/13:02.63)

2002 (5000m/13:07.40)"

When you add into that his 3000m seasonal best times of 1987 (7:40.25) and 1991 (7:33.91) there is again no sudden transformation anywhere. There is Y-O-Y variation and at least statistical improvement of up to some 2 %, which isn't anything strikingly enormous.

I think you do know, as I say it every time. I would also say Cacho's performance was "comparable" (0.8 seconds, or 0.4%) to the European performances from the mid-80s from Coe and Cram. As far as I know, Cacho has no established links to doping.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Yes I don't know why Rek down plays Spain in the 1990s. They also had this guy.

As you can see he was very (very) fast.

I feel your pain.

Aragon wrote:

It is nice that people debunk allegations I haven't made and avoid even addressing the real points.

Yes you did:

But correct/unbiased would be:

The Tuebingen survey, for all World Championship events, including field and sprint and walking, resulted in 44%, likely more when considering various scenarios of over- and under-estimation.

Or let's quote directly:

- - likely more than 43.6%, straight from the horse's mouth - -

Nice spinning though! Plus of course you again threw in the 29%, pretending this is the most likely number, which however doesn't even appear in the official study.

As for your 14%, you wrote:

This implies somewhat equal chances to have "false positives" and "false negatives" - otherwise the 14% wouldn't be "most accurate". With a 99.something threshold for a "false positive", "false negatives" will have to be a lot more likely, making these 14% virtually by definition a clear under-estimation.

rekrunner wrote:

Yes, in 2:11:41, 2:13:16, and again in 2:13:16, if I'm not mistaken, well out of the top-5 European performances before the EPO-era.

The goalpost was top times. If you'd like to do a comprehensive WC medal analysis, please feel free to do so.

That IS the top JC on a B wrote:

They won three straight WC Marathons in the EPO era you goddam moran!

"Performance at the top" Your words. The WC is exactly what hat indicates.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Last 200m in 25.2sec wow!

Something like that. In the 90s, he turned from a 1500 runner with a strong kick into a 5000 runner with a deadly kick and then into the fastest non-African 5000 runner ever, a mark that has remained for over 20 years now (still counting). Quite sensational.

As for no sudden improvement jump, fine, that puts him into a camp with, say, Kiprop and Rupp, in contrast to, say, Ramzi and Jeptoo and Radcliffe and Farah. That may be the difference between career doper and late-starter, or slow responder and high responder.

Why "alleged transformation", Aragon? Who alleged when Baumann started doping, based on what observation?

Hypothetically he could have been on blood transfusions/steroid cocktails since high school, and then replaced blood transfusions with the more convenient EPO, or he could have been clean until age 34, and used nandrolone only during one season. Or anything between these extremes.

casual obsever wrote:

As for no sudden improvement jump, fine...

Nice to read that you agree with the only thing I specifically claimed in the original post.

I think "with one major correction" captures all that succinctly. As you already knew, using only the suggestion by the authors from Table 4, minus 1 SE, gives 28.9% -- or more simply "one major correction" which includes one "standard error of estimate" (also found in Table 4). Both "more than 29%", qualified by "with one major correction", appears to me to capture all of your concerns in a quite transparent way. I did not give any indication of the likelihood of 29%, and technically "more than 29%" excludes 29%, making the likelihood 0. I gave another choice, 44% or more, also not indicating any likelihood. Since I was asked about my estimate of doping prevalence among the "top-5", your answer cannot be more correct than mine. I did not imply anything about the chance of false positives or false negatives, but that I'm inclined to believe that 14% is closer to the true distance event doping prevalence in the top-5 compared to the other choices I gave -- 29% or 44%, as they included non-distance events. This means if 14% is a clear under-estimate by your logic, as you suggest, I'm still inclined to believe that the corrected value will not be more than 21.5%. Since I have incomplete data, and was nevertheless asked to provide an estimate, this is my response, despite your best efforts to answer the question for me.

Aragon wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

As for no sudden improvement jump, fine...

Nice to read that you agree with the only thing I specifically claimed in the original post.

Curious: Do you use sudden improvement jumps as one of your primary factors in suspecting doping?

Yes, my words stripped completely of out context. These words appeared at the bottom of a post strictly about top times, at the end of a series of posts, strictly about top times. And every time I neglect to say "top times" in every sentence, and someone says, "what about medals?", I say, no, not medals but "top times", because that was the context, and I don't have meaningful metrics for quality and quantity of WC medals. If we want to switch and talk about how Spain did in WC medals, compared to Europe, then we need to count WC medals for all countries, and evaluate the how the distribution compares to other countries, against a newly defined measure of quantity and quality. Given so few opportunities for WC medals, it may be hard to develop meaningful metrics. Note my comment was not just about the marathon, but over all distance events. In the EPO-era, Spain seems to have raised itself up to a European standard, and in some cases, maybe slightly higher.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Yes, in 2:11:41, 2:13:16, and again in 2:13:16, if I'm not mistaken, well out of the top-5 European performances before the EPO-era.

The goalpost was top times. If you'd like to do a comprehensive WC medal analysis, please feel free to do so.

"Performance at the top" Your words. The WC is exactly what hat indicates.

But convicted doper can also mean their best performances were dirty. You forgot they're convicted dopers i.e. convicted cheaters. Most of them will deny & lie, make up excuses, and not admit to doping. Sure, once in a while we'll get a Barbi or Lombard, who will stand up on their own two feet and accept responsibility, and in the case of Barbi, tell a little bit about the substances & schedule they were on. But that's far and few between - it's mostly denial & lame brain excuses.

With Kiprop I suspect he was aware they were on to him from the "likely doping" status and dialed back his program. He may have gotten some professional doping advice or researched on the internet on how to cycle his doses around the testing. If he was microdosing he could have been misinformed about the new detection window and caught off guard.

But Kiprop is a hilarious case - I can't believe you would give this doper the benefit of the doubt. Afterall, isn't he the clown who said be wants jail terms for dopers? ?

Nice spin. How do those straws keep you afloat?

Yes it can. I did not forget he was a convicted doper, but that was not the question. Didn't Kenya make doping criminal? He should probably go to jail then.

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

But convicted doper can also mean their best performances were dirty. You forgot they're convicted dopers i.e. convicted cheaters.

But Kiprop is a hilarious case - I can't believe you would give this doper the benefit of the doubt. Afterall, isn't he the clown who said be wants jail terms for dopers? ?

All these solutions to stay afloat...

Just a distraction that attempts to ignore that I talk about top times and not WC medals.