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

Aragon wrote:

Assuming that those 3-4 % figures are right and can be applied across all the disciplines, it does look suspicious why marathon didn't improve after rHuEPO and has improved linearly despite all anti-doping efforts.

And if speed is suspicious as such today (e. g Froome) and modern dopers "tome down a bit", isn't it possible that track runners could be faster than those of the wild EPO era under the surface and there is no decline in speed?

Actually the pre epo record was either Lopes 2:07:12 or Dinsamo's 2:06:50 it is now 2:01:39 or slightly over 4%. But I have no idea how much faster Berlin is compared to Rotterdam, ithe at all.

The modern guys aren't as fast Komen.

Marathon WR is "now" almost 4 % faster but it wasn't in 1991,1992, 1993, 1994... 2016, or 2017, when rHuEPO had been introduced. Of course you can maintain that that the"rampant EPO era" was on track around 1996-2004 whereas fastest marathon runners have gradually elevated their Hct's from the late 1990's until 2018 and increased their training rHuEPO use also during the same time period.

Who said Western training stopped working in the West? The difference is not training or doping or testing, but in the inherent level of talent in the different subjects, and the different levels of maximum potential ability.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

It's also plausible that clean western coaches went to Africa, with western training, and without dope or doctors or blood bags, and the rest is history.

Why would Western training work so well there and stop working in the West?

Subway Surfers wrote:

The modern guys aren't as fast Komen.

Absolutely true, but all the pre-ABP runners until 2009 also weren't as fast Komen, far from it, because it is an outlier figure even for the era of rampant rHuEPO use. A rare WR is so good that the third in the all-time list is 1 % slower than the record.

It is equally obvious that the post-ABP endurance speed trends on the track are in the best scenario flat depending on the distance or slightly slower depending on whether one looks at the 1st, 10th or 20th fastest of the yearlist of any given year. There can be various non-Hct related explanations for this trend particularly when marathon seems to be only faster year-by-year.

You think Rosa made the difference with a "deadly mix". Speaking of hypothesis, this is pure speculation on your part. The introduction of organized training, structure, and support, in East Africa, by Rosa and others, is recorded history.

Subway Surfers wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Why would Western training work so well there and stop working in the West?

Exactly, his statement made no sense. Rosa started his deadly mix on Kenyans in 1990. By the 1991 season they really started to move.

Not so fast card shark. Here's your remark to Subway that I specifically responded to:

"Just to clarify that I haven't claimed that you hold the view that blood doping gives roughly equal improvement across the distances, but people such as the mystical "Chad" and some other folks as well as the Malm et al paper tend to make this assumption - be it right or not."

So, as "usual" (and "once again") I have "no understanding about the content" you guys are discussing? Malm et al doesn't make any distinctions between the different distances. The paper states "up to 3%..." And further estimates around four (4) minutes in the marathon, which I believe is around that 3% figure. As mentioned, Chad (m!ndweak) clearly states his estimation is 4% across the board - he makes no differences for the marathon.

Therefore, are you going to belittle Chad that he has "no understanding of the content" of your discussion? What about Malm et al? The paper can't be anymore more clear on the 3% figure, and futher estimates "20-30" secs for the 5000 and 4 mins for the previously mentioned marathon. Are you going to scrutinize & trash talk that paper, once again? Or does Chad & Malm et al get a free pass where you find it more to your entertainment value to belittle me when I'm mearly agreeing and subscribing to Malm et al and to a certain degree Chad's calculations (based on my own profile progression analysis of confirmed dopers).

When I counted quality performances (faster than 2:07:11), between 1990 and Jan 2018, I noted there were: - 100 quality performances up to Geb's first world record (Sep. 2007) -- a period of 18 years - 447 performances after (Sep. 2007) -- a period of 10+ years When the Sunday Times analyzed the leaked database and broke down World Championship and Olympic medals won, for the marathon (men and women) they found that: - approximately 1 out of 9 medals were won by athletes who had recorded one "suspicious value" between 2001-2012 - or alternatively 8 out of 9 medals were won by athletes NEVER recording a suspicious value

Aragon wrote:

Marathon WR is "now" almost 4 % faster but it wasn't in 1991,1992, 1993, 1994... 2016, or 2017, when rHuEPO had been introduced. Of course you can maintain that that the"rampant EPO era" was on track around 1996-2004 whereas fastest marathon runners have gradually elevated their Hct's from the late 1990's until 2018 and increased their training rHuEPO use also during the same time period.

The actual word I meant was "context" not "content", but mea culpa for misspelling it. And the discussion wasn't with Subway but with casual.

I believe that it is entirely plausible that someone who was 13:30 clean can drop to 13-flat-ish on epo alone, though most likely without any passport testing. It would also take a couple of years ie the athlete initially would only be taking part in smaller meets, on smaller more open stadiums and say drops to 13:17. The next season they start to get invited to peripheral European meets, then the big ones and dropping to 13:12, then 13:08, then 13:02 etc Next season 12:59. But there is no way we can show this through a scientific test that will 'satisfy everyone.'

rekrunner wrote:

You think Rosa made the difference with a "deadly mix". Speaking of hypothesis, this is pure speculation on your part.

The introduction of organized training, structure, and support, in East Africa, by Rosa and others, is recorded history.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Exactly, his statement made no sense. Rosa started his deadly mix on Kenyans in 1990. By the 1991 season they really started to move.

By structure you of course must mean a doping program.

Or would that be support?

rekrunner wrote:

You think Rosa made the difference with a "deadly mix". Speaking of hypothesis, this is pure speculation on your part.

The introduction of organized training, structure, and support, in East Africa, by Rosa and others, is recorded history.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Exactly, his statement made no sense. Rosa started his deadly mix on Kenyans in 1990. By the 1991 season they really started to move.

Ha Rekrunner, you've debated us for so long that you haven't realized you've gone 180° in your reasoning. When many of us looked at the history of the sport and deduced that a lot of dirty European agents/coaches/doctors went to East Africa in the 1990s with this new undetectable endurance drug (and maybe hgh too), and suddenly records dropped in huge amounts. You're response was "Oh, the East Africans were already good. Just look at their world cross-country dominance from the early 1980s." So obviously systems were in place pre 1990 but the gap in track times with the rest was non existent and I know how you prefer track times for analysis. However, now your argument is the opposite that, "Rosa and others" simply introduced "organized training, structure, and support." ? got ya.

It's good to see ex runner or El Keniano has joined our debate. No doubt the civility of this thread will now sink into the gutter.

rekrunner wrote:

When I counted quality performances (faster than 2:07:11), between 1990 and Jan 2018, I noted there were:

- 100 quality performances up to Geb's first world record (Sep. 2007) -- a period of 18 years

- 447 performances after (Sep. 2007) -- a period of 10+ years

When the Sunday Times analyzed the leaked database and broke down World Championship and Olympic medals won, for the marathon (men and women) they found that:

- approximately 1 out of 9 medals were won by athletes who had recorded one "suspicious value" between 2001-2012

- or alternatively 8 out of 9 medals were won by athletes NEVER recording a suspicious value

Can you post that link again from the Sunday Times? (I had it bookmarked in my smartphone but no can find now). And if I recall correctly, wasn't Morroco high on that list? Do you remember where Kenya & Ethiopia were at?

I honestly read your posts like two times and can't find anything relating to the speed trend discussion except that your sources are against casual obsever's speculation that rHuEPO - induced speed increase is different depending on the endurance distance.

But if your answer to every past, present and future observed anomaly in the speed trends is "I didn't bother even to read your claim or argument, but Chad clearly says 4 %", then I guess there is some other relevant data there.

Morocco was Top-5, behind Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, and Greece, and Kenya was like 12th and Ethiopia 18th.

Let's Get To The Bottom Of This wrote:

Can you post that link again from the Sunday Times? (I had it bookmarked in my smartphone but no can find now). And if I recall correctly, wasn't Morroco high on that list? Do you remember where Kenya & Ethiopia were at?

Not at all. When you have the mentality of a hammer, you only see nails everywhere.

physics defiant wrote:

By structure you of course must mean a doping program.

Looks like you really don't "got me". If you've looked at the history of the sport, why are you unaware of the improved coaching? Cross country in the 1980s showed the depth of the talent pool in both Kenya and Ethiopia, for the seniors and juniors, unlikely to be from EPO or blood transfusions. There were systems in place, which improved when a few coaches started working with Kenya and Ethiopia. The disagreement is that you think the large drops in times in the 1990s and afterwards, were related to doping (something that should have been easily replicated outside of Africa), while I think the large drops were due to improved training for a group of highly motivated, and highly talented athletes, something that also did not exist in the 1980s to the same degree. There is no contradiction to say they were already good before EPO, showing depth of talent, and potential, and that they got better with more effective and consistent training that allowed them to realize their full potential.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Ha Rekrunner, you've debated us for so long that you haven't realized you've gone 180° in your reasoning. When many of us looked at the history of the sport and deduced that a lot of dirty European agents/coaches/doctors went to East Africa in the 1990s with this new undetectable endurance drug (and maybe hgh too), and suddenly records dropped in huge amounts. You're response was "Oh, the East Africans were already good. Just look at their world cross-country dominance from the early 1980s." So obviously systems were in place pre 1990 but the gap in track times with the rest was non existent and I know how you prefer track times for analysis. However, now your argument is the opposite that, "Rosa and others" simply introduced "organized training, structure, and support." ? got ya.

Underground Bodyboarders wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

It's good to see ex runner or El Keniano has joined our debate. No doubt the civility of this thread will now sink into the gutter.

It's good to see how you forgot you were the one starting with the "POS moron" insult, Mr. Civil.

You sound like a trouble maker. Lol.