VIOLAH JEPCHUMBA, a 65-minute half-marathoner and Ken-born athlete. busted for EPO.

Okay, so let’s say it’s true and EPO is only beneficial for middle distances and interval- like efforts…

That means training sessions are substantially improved, correct? In that case, it’s a HUGE benefit come race day, even if that race is a marathon.

People who believe EPO to be worthless, would you mind explaining what I may be missing here?

You should write speeches for politicians. Just reams of convoluted evasive BS.

22twos wrote:

Okay, so let’s say it’s true and EPO is only beneficial for middle distances and interval- like efforts…

That means training sessions are substantially improved, correct? In that case, it’s a HUGE benefit come race day, even if that race is a marathon.

People who believe EPO to be worthless, would you mind explaining what I may be missing here?

Calling Jon Orange to the front desk.....

22twos wrote:

Okay, so let’s say it’s true and EPO is only beneficial for middle distances and interval- like efforts…

That means training sessions are substantially improved, correct? In that case, it’s a HUGE benefit come race day, even if that race is a marathon.

People who believe EPO to be worthless, would you mind explaining what I may be missing here?

It helps with the Marathon because a well run Marathon is like all of those distances rolled into one.

Even though the runner is not going at the actual paces of shorter races the effort level to maintain pace rises late in the race.

The last 10km on down the runner ends up sucking wind just like a shorter race.

rekrunner wrote:

If students are caught cheating on a test -- they should be punished for cheating.

After they have been adjudicated and sentenced and serving their punishment, if you then want to claim how much cheating improved their test scores -- you need two numbers, and you only have one.

That's actually not a bad comparison, I am surprised.

If the cheating student improved last year from a C student to an A student, and gets caught cheating this year, he will not get retro-actively disqualified for last year's As because of a lack of evidence. However, most of his peers and teachers will be convinced that he started cheating last year. Exceptions are his girlfriend and his mom.

If the cheating runner improved last year from a 1:09 runner to a 1:05 runner, and gets caught cheating this year, he will not get retro-actively disqualified for last year's 1:05 because of a lack of evidence. However, most of his peers and teachers will be convinced that he started cheating last year. Exceptions are rekrunner and Canova.

rekrunner wrote:

If students are caught cheating on a test -- they should be punished for cheating.

After they have been adjudicated and sentenced and serving their punishment, if you then want to claim how much cheating improved their test scores -- you need two numbers, and you only have one.

You need a reliable and an accurate way to assess what their non-cheating score would have been.

It is not because they cheated, that you are permitted to make assumptions in your favor that you could not otherwise make, due to some benefit of the doubt.

I can't answer why she needed to dope, because I think she did not need to dope.

For one, cheating once removes any benefit of doubt that a doper may have been entitled to other wise (Rupp, Bolt, Farah, etc get benefit of doubt since they have not tested positive).

Secondly, the number 69:29 was thrown out there as a clean time, when in fact, we don't even know if that's true. That also might be a doped time and only doping for a longer time helped reduce it to 65:xx.

Thirdly, why do you need to be an apologist for someone "caught red handed" doping? If they've cheated, then there is no reason to defend any other of their results or times.

I have been reading and talking about doping (especially EPO) since the early 2000s with cycling, and it seems to me (just an opinion), is that there is no doubt EPO works no matter who you are. Sure, I can believe there are diminishing returns are extremely highly trained athletes, but I suspect doping is what helped them be able to be highly trained in the first place. Sort of like training wheels.

One last point. The proof is in the near 30 year history now of people using EPO in endurance sports. If it didn't work, would people still be willing to risk their careers and reputations on it?

There are many accounts of athletes taking EPO and describing it as being turbo charged. You hear that often. I think Christian Hesch is one of those. There are also several cyclists that have said the same, although the names are escaping me. I just don't buy that it's a placebo.

quite simple actually wrote:

It helps with the Marathon because a well run Marathon is like all of those distances rolled into one.

Right. Just look at the ladies:

- banned EPO cheats Shobukhova, Jeptoo, Sumgong

- likely blood dopers Radcliffe, Keitany

Look at wins these 5 have racked up, with various world records, including the current one and the one for mixed gender marathons. Wow, just wow.

On the male side, however, no positives at the very top, and no likely doper mention that I know of.

Hmmmm - does the female body react differently to Hct/VO2max, or are females more likely cheats*, or did the males simply get lucky so far?

* That can't be! The mere thought is already sexist, so I never thought that.

+1 Given the A and B sample result, the outcome would probably be the same, but just the same, athletes deserve some legal representation and translation services.

Exactly. If EPO is a placebo, then I guess so is Heroin. People injecting that stuff are just pretending to be high....

I agree with the rest, but for these three comes on top of unbelievable performances/performance jumps:

- Rupp: likely blood doper according to IAAF, likely testo doper according to USADA, likely forbidden method user according to USADA, "testosterone medication"

- Bolt: banned training partner, Jamaican clen scandal in Beijing

- Farah: likely blood doper according to IAAF, doorbell, lost injection paperwork

"likely doper" means "highly unlikely" to be clean:

So, my doubts for those three are very very small.

Dopers SUCK wrote:

Exactly. If EPO is a placebo, then I guess so is Heroin. People injecting that stuff are just pretending to be high....

well now it's not quite like that. You can become just as high naturally by practicing.

rekrunner wrote:

+1

Given the A and B sample result, the outcome would probably be the same, but just the same, athletes deserve some legal representation and translation services.

+1

DHT123 wrote:

I think the AIU has stepped up its game with the recent positives in Kenya, but reading this is pretty disappointing. Where’s the agent in this discussion? Where’s the coach? Why aren’t they going after the supplier? Who’s her sponsor? (Adidas?) Where’s the Bahraini federation? Where’s the plea deal to help get to the truth?

+1

But that's business as usual, isn't it? They all rather accept a full ban than to reveal details.

Even Gay, who nevertheless got a reduced ban for "providing substantial assistance to USADA", didn't give up any supplier/co-conspirator.

casual obsever wrote:

quite simple actually wrote:

It helps with the Marathon because a well run Marathon is like all of those distances rolled into one.

Right. Just look at the ladies:

- banned EPO cheats Shobukhova, Jeptoo, Sumgong

- likely blood dopers Radcliffe, Keitany

Look at wins these 5 have racked up, with various world records, including the current one and the one for mixed gender marathons. Wow, just wow.

On the male side, however, no positives at the very top, and no likely doper mention that I know of.

Hmmmm - does the female body react differently to Hct/VO2max, or are females more likely cheats*, or did the males simply get lucky so far?

* That can't be! The mere thought is already sexist, so I never thought that.

Don't forget that the very first male runner ever banned for EPO was marathoner Roberto Barbi waaaay back in 2001:

And the late Abderrahim Goumri ran a smoker of a time (2:05) back in 05:

And Kalalie won the prestigious Athens Marathon last year:

Plenty of marathoners on the fuel...no surprises there.

Oh Please wrote:

George213 wrote:

An Interesting comment from Sara Hall.

‏

@SaraHall3

2h2 hours ago

More

Replying to @d9monti

Went from 69 min to 65 min in the half in 2016– ??

So, EPO works on top athletes after all?

Funny, but Canova, if I have properly understood him, says that elite athletes who are PROPERLY trained have no other room for improvement, rendering EPO uneffective for them. That is not to say that those that are lesser trained cannot also take a shortcut to that level via EPO.

I think Canova should provide a list of Kenyan born athletes he thinks are PROPERLY trained and then everyone not included on that list that makes a big improvement or runs a fast time should be suspect of using EPO.

I take it that in this case based on Canova's preaching is that this athlete was not properly trained which is why EPO worked, if she had been properly trained she would have run a 65 w/o EPO.

Why do you keep asking why? I've answered this question many times. There is a perception of high reward. The issue is whether such a perception is false, or justified.

This Is Getting Ridiculous wrote:

Still doesn't make sense. ? Does a person rob a bank if they're financial sound and don't need the money? Does a drug addicted spend all their money, blow all their savings, even steal money from relatives, etc., on drugs if the drugs didn't give them the addictive high?

If Jepchumba could run that fast clean why would she dope and risk getting caught like she did? Athletes usually know what their physical limitations are and some accept it while others look to cheat to get faster. One other reason might be to take a shortcut with dope to achieve a certain level by getting more with less training.

Que Sera Sera wrote:

22twos wrote:

Okay, so let’s say it’s true and EPO is only beneficial for middle distances and interval- like efforts…

That means training sessions are substantially improved, correct? In that case, it’s a HUGE benefit come race day, even if that race is a marathon.

People who believe EPO to be worthless, would you mind explaining what I may be missing here?

Calling Jon Orange to the front desk.....

This is the only question that matters in the EPO debate, everything else is just pedantics.

Rekrunner?

Getting caught red-handed deserves a ban -- I don't apologize for that. But then why do so many feel the need to say, that this helps "prove 5% effect"? Like you said, we don't know if 69:29 is dirty or clean. Likewise, we don't even know if 65:51 or 65:22 is dirty or clean. To decide the question of effect, we need two reliable numbers, and we have none. Catching an athlete red-handed doesn't give anyone else new liberties to use wrong methods or assume unknown data, to decide the question of how much effect cheating had.

rekrunner wrote:

Why do you keep asking why? I've answered this question many times. There is a perception of high reward. The issue is whether such a perception is false, or justified.

This Is Getting Ridiculous wrote:

Still doesn't make sense. ? Does a person rob a bank if they're financial sound and don't need the money? Does a drug addicted spend all their money, blow all their savings, even steal money from relatives, etc., on drugs if the drugs didn't give them the addictive high?

If Jepchumba could run that fast clean why would she dope and risk getting caught like she did? Athletes usually know what their physical limitations are and some accept it while others look to cheat to get faster. One other reason might be to take a shortcut with dope to achieve a certain level by getting more with less training.

Um, they got rewarded quite handsomely before being caught.