Subway Surfer . You just aren’t paying attention ! The 1200; the 1ks and 2ks were at 10k pace for the athlete concerned. Yes a level of lactate was involved but the efforts were not what could be labelled as really intensity for him !
Subway Surfer . You just aren’t paying attention ! The 1200; the 1ks and 2ks were at 10k pace for the athlete concerned. Yes a level of lactate was involved but the efforts were not what could be labelled as really intensity for him !
And Ross Tucker, as we just recently saw. I would agree it's more interesting to compare an "EPO group" to a "legal group" (i.e. a "control group" and/or a "LHTL group") at the same stage of training, rather than comparing an "EPO group" to their pre-intervention baseline.
Aragon wrote:
In any case the one percent was not only "suggested here" by rekrunner but was also an opinion of people such as Michael Ashenden and Randy Eichner. There is also reference in your walking thread about someone gaining large Hb mass increases with LHTL-technique so we should compare blood doping increases to that method and not to baseline as suggested by Jim Stray-Gundersen.
rekrunner wrote:
And Ross Tucker, as we just recently saw.
Yes, but as you cited 2 pages back, 1% if racing 4 weeks after moderate EPO use for 4 weeks, not for a case of racing a few days after 12 weeks of hard-core EPO use as in the last two decades (note the "still"):
rekrunner wrote:
[Tucker's tweet]What the study shows is that you can take EPO for 4 wks, stop for four weeks, and still be 3% faster (and OK, in elites we may expect smaller effects - say 1%, or 8s in a 5000m, rather than 3%).
What does Ross say in this hypothetical case?
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
And Ross Tucker, as we just recently saw.
Yes, but as you cited 2 pages back, 1% if racing 4 weeks after moderate EPO use for 4 weeks, not for a case of racing a few days after 12 weeks of hard-core EPO use as in the last two decades (note the "still"):
rekrunner wrote:
[Tucker's tweet]What the study shows is that you can take EPO for 4 wks, stop for four weeks, and still be 3% faster (and OK, in elites we may expect smaller effects - say 1%, or 8s in a 5000m, rather than 3%).
Nobody should be making even tiny potential gains sound trivial.
Game Changer is the Buzzword wrote:
Yeah..."game changer" doesn't sound like any one-percenter that's been suggested here.
rekrunner wrote:
What does Ross say in this hypothetical case?
Why hypothetical?
He didn't. (Yet.) As you know.
But note that he scaled down the 3% in that observed case to 1%.
How he would scale down the 5% gain directly after 4 weeks of moderate EPO usage, well, your guess is as good as mine. Maybe to 1.5%? That would then be in line with Ashenden's 1-1.5%.
As discussed earlier, no one ever dared to study the blatant, literally all-out EPO doping of the last two decades, with off scores above 150 and Hct above 60%.
Ullrich was also on "industrial strength glue."
rekrunner wrote:
Nobody should be making even tiny potential gains sound trivial.
Lance seems to imply that "low-octane" one-percenter PEDs (e.g., roids, T, GH, corticosteroids) are nothing compared to the "high-octane" ten percenter EPO:
https://youtu.be/dVvoZ_Y8nDwHe didn't just imply it. He proved it in a seven year scientific experiment accepted around the world by actual physiologists.
We know from Ramzi
2004 3:30.25 Roma (ITA) 02 JUL 2004
2003 3:39.30 Rabat (MAR) 31 MAY 2003
2002 3:44.85 Stockholm (SWE) 16 JUL 2002
And in Rome he beat El Guerrouj but then disappeared (until 2005 when he did the double) while one month later El Guerrouj ran
2004 3:27.64 Zürich (SUI) 06 AUG 2004
So it was definitely worth a couple of % for him.
Subway Surfers wrote:
We know from Ramzi
2004 3:30.25 Roma (ITA) 02 JUL 2004
2003 3:39.30 Rabat (MAR) 31 MAY 2003
2002 3:44.85 Stockholm (SWE) 16 JUL 2002
And in Rome he beat El Guerrouj but then disappeared (until 2005 when he did the double) while one month later El Guerrouj ran
2004 3:27.64 Zürich (SUI) 06 AUG 2004
So it was definitely worth a couple of % for him.
Ramzi's sudden, rapid improvement is nothing short of ridiculous; 9 seconds in one year (~4%). Even if he never tested positive for dope, any competent coach would see this as a red flag.
Here's a good article back in 09 about Ramzi's doping and how cycling helped catch him on the CERA positive from Beijing. And people were suspecting him of doping long before the doping positive:
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/nolan-has-no-regrets-even-if-the-cheaters-robbed-him-1.758073?mode=amp"James Nolan was 100 per cent sure about Ramzi. Not only was he never taken in or mildly impressed, he knew from day one Ramzi was on drugs. When the Moroccan turned Bahraini first burst onto the scene at the 2005 World Championships in Helsinki, winning the 800-1,500 metre double, Nolan told us he was “doped up to his eyeballs” – but of course we never printed that. We were 99 per cent sure; we just didn’t have any hard evidence."
"doped up to his eyeballs"....too funny ?
Ramzi was also the 1500m Moroccan champion in 2001 with the time of 3:41.5 when he was only c:a 21, so his improvement was more close to 4 % from 2001 to 2004 which sounds more modest, of which the role of rHuEPO is difficult to measure because:
1) He most likely took other PEDs, so we don't know how much T or GH or some other product benefitted him.
2) For a guy only 21, some real (physique) and statistical improvement (more attempts, better competitors, draft etc, even better weather) is always to be expected if one takes only a good years vs. a mediocre year.
So you agree with Lance when he makes the tiny potential 1% gain sound trivial?
physics defiant wrote:
He didn't just imply it. He proved it in a seven year scientific experiment accepted around the world by actual physiologists.
OK I agree with this idea that 1% is trivial -- you've convinced me. Here's the thing about Lance: - The 1% estimate was not for elite cyclists - Lance is really not the best spokesman for explaining the cause of his performance -- not being a scientist, nor a coach, and having a history of dis-honesty and exaggeration and fooling the public - Lance says 1% and 10%, but gives no performance measurements before or after
Tour da Lance wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Nobody should be making even tiny potential gains sound trivial.
Lance seems to imply that "low-octane" one-percenter PEDs (e.g., roids, T, GH, corticosteroids) are nothing compared to the "high-octane" ten percenter EPO:
Who knows? Maybe EPO accounts for as much as 1% of Ramzi's 4% improvement. Probably less though, when we look at how little 800m and 1500m times advanced in the EPO-era. To really understand the sources his improvement, we need to consider all the factors.
Doped to the Max wrote:
Ramzi's sudden, rapid improvement is nothing short of ridiculous; 9 seconds in one year (~4%). Even if he never tested positive for dope, any competent coach would see this as a red flag.
rekrunner wrote:
- Lance is really not the best spokesman for explaining the cause of his performance -- not being a scientist, nor a coach, and having a history of dis-honesty and exaggeration and fooling the public
I don't even get it why people take anything that Lance Armstrong says at a face value when the guy has been described as "sociopath" / "narcissist" / "Bernie Madoff of cycling" / "pathological liar" and all the other names. It is almost the consensus view that he tries to repair his image and tries everything to shift the narrative to that direction, and it would be in his incentives to maintain the "I couldn't compete clean" - story, a story that might be true or not.
About the early 1990's, it is very likely that he is simply lying about his PED use of those years, because just a few years ago after his confession he maintained that he took testosterone first time only in 1996 a year after he had succumbed to rHuEPO (if we are to believe even that timeline). New York Times sports writer Juliet Macur wrote in her book The Cycle of Lies that the use of testosterone in Motorola was prevalent possibly as early as in 1992 and while the further tests didn't confirm his suspicious T/E-ratios in the samples from 1993-1996, the T/E ratios were suspicious 9.0/1, 7.6/1 and 6.5/1.
Aragon wrote:
Ramzi was also the 1500m Moroccan champion in 2001 with the time of 3:41.5 when he was only c:a 21, so his improvement was more close to 4 % from 2001 to 2004 which sounds more modest, of which the role of rHuEPO is difficult to measure because:
1) He most likely took other PEDs, so we don't know how much T or GH or some other product benefitted him.
2) For a guy only 21, some real (physique) and statistical improvement (more attempts, better competitors, draft etc, even better weather) is always to be expected if one takes only a good years vs. a mediocre year.
So I anticipated your response (and Rekrunner's) that's why I stated "a couple of percent." So if we look at his progression and add in the 3:41.5, which the IAAF doesn't list and assume it was or was near that season's best.
2006 3:29.14 Roma (ITA) 14 JUL 2006
2005 3:30.00 Roma (ITA) 08 JUL 2005
2004 3:30.25 Roma (ITA) 02 JUL 2004
2003 3:39.30 Rabat (MAR) 31 MAY 2003
2002 3:44.85 Stockholm (SWE) 16 JUL 2002
2001 3:41.5 ??? 2001
We get an athlete that was in the doldrums (the doldrums are literally off the coast of Morocco), he had stopped improving and then suddenly 9s or about 4% in a season. But I never went with this 4% calculation from epo alone because I wasn't sure how much was age maturity, but we can now sort off rule this out. However, I agree with you on this part, looking at him, actually when I first saw him I knew he was taking some sort of muscle enhancement. Another caveat, I don't think that we ever saw Ramzi's peak/flat out performance, much like Mo (and I'm not accusing Mo of a thing here), his style of racing was "a racer" he just wanted to win, the way he easily demolished top class field hints at this (Kiprop, Willis, Baala, Choge, Webb). My guess is Ramzi wanted to be a world class athlete "and f*#k it I'm going to take A + B to achieve it." A + B is obviously the Casablanca Cocktail.
Doped to the Max wrote:
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/nolan-has-no-regrets-even-if-the-cheaters-robbed-him-1.758073?mode=amp"James Nolan was 100 per cent sure about Ramzi. Not only was he never taken in or mildly impressed, he knew from day one Ramzi was on drugs. When the Moroccan turned Bahraini first burst onto the scene at the 2005 World Championships in Helsinki, winning the 800-1,500 metre double, Nolan told us he was “doped up to his eyeballs” – but of course we never printed that. We were 99 per cent sure; we just didn’t have any hard evidence."
"doped up to his eyeballs"....too funny ?
Yes I'm never sure which one is more doped, "doped to eyeballs" or "doped to the gills" ? what is potentially most amazing about Ramzi was he did all of this with a shockingly inefficient arm carry in his form. Proper technique analysis and he would have run even faster. Who was his coach?
Subway Surfers wrote:
My guess is Ramzi wanted...
My guess is that it is most time-efficient to refer to my earlier post which has all the problems with these Y-O-Y comparisons which are almost by definition biased to give huge improvements. And no sane person would think that any 22-year old has "stopped improving" based on SB time of one year of which we know next to nothing.
I do agree that when one takes a look into all the dubious more-or-less sudden improvements of the IAAF's seasonal bests of known dopers, it is very likely that most athletes benefit from rHuEPO and some more than the others.
Hmmm....tough question ? But I'll take Khalid Boulami, brother of EPO positive & former WR holder Brahim. ?
Have you seen this article by Cram? (I know another article on doper Ramzi...imagine that). It states that Ramzi was less than an impressive junior, and appeared to have limited prospects. And the 9 second jump from 3:39 to 3:30 in one year and the double-gold are noted as the big red flags. Winning the double gold against the good competition there at Helinski (he also set his PB in the 800) is enough to roll your eyes. But running around with Off-scores of 157.8 & 148, he went into the 05 WCs fully prepared. ?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2009/may/05/rashid-ramzi-drugs-athletics-steve-cram