new study shows micro-doping can boost performance nearly 5% and impossible to detect

4% - I seem to remember something else that can boost performance by 4% as well

Kvothe wrote:

4% - I seem to remember something else that can boost performance by 4% as well

Seriously? After two years you still don't get that the number refers to the average EFFICIENCY improvement?

That means on modern synthetic tracks and mircodoping. Peter Snell was capable of a 1:38 800m and 3:24 1500m.

This means Herb Elliott on rocket fuel and synthetic tracks was capable of 3:243.75 for 1500m and Ron Clarke on rocket fuel and synthetic tracks was capable of 26:07 for 10000m and 12:31 for 5000m

Bill Rodgers 2:09 on rocket fuel would be a 2:03:50 runner and probably be capable of a sub 2 hour marathon on those 4% shoes.

They used 9 well-trained men in Denmark or wherever.

But they probably didn't compare them with well-trained men who live at altitude.

It's possible that too much blood can actually decrease performance if the heart has to work harder to pump the extra fluid that's not supposed to be there.

Of course it works, and of course it is difficult to detect... that’s why most of the top performers in every endurance sport are on it.

In the CIRC report by the UCI, the consensus among the riders was that the benefit of doping reduced from 10-15% to 3-5% with the introduction of the ABP.

Sand Dunes wrote:

This means Herb Elliott on rocket fuel and synthetic tracks was capable of 3:243.75 for 1500m and Ron Clarke on rocket fuel and synthetic tracks was capable of 26:07 for 10000m and 12:31 for 5000m

What about Bekele on rocket fuel? He would be definately well under sub 26 for 10,000m and under sub 12:20 for 5,000m.

rekrunner wrote:

In the CIRC report by the UCI, the consensus among the riders was that the benefit of doping reduced from 10-15% to 3-5% with the introduction of the ABP.

3-5% is still big at that level. Probably would have held Lance back a bit - he's a ten percenter guy pre-ABP. ?

So 4.7% among amateur cyclists should come as no surprise. The same report tells us that 3-5% gives riders hope that they can compete clean:

The ABP was a paradigm shift in anti-doping and began to reduce the percentage

performance gain that EPO had previously offered because riders had to take smaller

quantities to avoid detection. This in turn gave clean riders the chance to compete and

win, particularly in shorter stages in the Grand Tours. Gradually, 10-15% gains have

become a thing of the past. It has been reported that increases in performance by

micro-dosing EPO (as one form of continued doping) are now perhaps between 3-5%.

This has had a significant impact on the doping landscape today because by reducing the

performance gains, riders will start to believe that they can have a career riding clean.

This is a key development in the fight against doping.

Although it's not clear to me what 3-5% is measuring, it's apparently not big enough to destroy all hope.

It doesn't make much sense to translate the findings of this study on cyclists to the best times of elite runners.

Sand Dunes wrote:

That means on modern synthetic tracks and mircodoping. Peter Snell was capable of a 1:38 800m and 3:24 1500m.

which brings up an odd question, what happens to athletes who participate in doping studies?

I mean, however scientific and for good reasons, they are still doping?

if runners did this, IAAF would have to give them a 2 year ban, no?

not like you can get a TUE for "doping study" lol

(or did I just give NOP an idea?)

How much faster could Bekele be if he had rocket fuel AND tied his shoe laces properly? 11:59 for 5000m?https://bergansportathletics.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/img_3040.jpg?w=816https://www.instagram.com/p/BqcfPARB9w9/

Banana Bread wrote:

Sand Dunes wrote:

This means Herb Elliott on rocket fuel and synthetic tracks was capable of 3:243.75 for 1500m and Ron Clarke on rocket fuel and synthetic tracks was capable of 26:07 for 10000m and 12:31 for 5000m

What about Bekele on rocket fuel? He would be definately well under sub 26 for 10,000m and under sub 12:20 for 5,000m.

He's heel striking and his foot is landing way in front of his center of mass.

D= m/v wrote:

Kvothe wrote:

4% - I seem to remember something else that can boost performance by 4% as well

Seriously? After two years you still don't get that the number refers to the average EFFICIENCY improvement?

Seriously? After two years, you're still not making any sense.

Bunny Ears wrote:

How much faster could Bekele be if he had rocket fuel AND tied his shoe laces properly? 11:59 for 5000m?

https://bergansportathletics.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/img_3040.jpg?w=816https://www.instagram.com/p/BqcfPARB9w9/

Banana Bread wrote:

What about Bekele on rocket fuel? He would be definately well under sub 26 for 10,000m and under sub 12:20 for 5,000m.

And you can't see the veins in his legs either, that means he's too fat. 11.30 if he had been in proper shape.

rekrunner wrote:

It doesn't make much sense to translate the findings of this study on cyclists to the best times of elite runners.

Sand Dunes wrote:

That means on modern synthetic tracks and mircodoping. Peter Snell was capable of a 1:38 800m and 3:24 1500m.

It isn't scientifically defensible, no, but the back of the envelope calculations that Sand Dunes' is doing are the first things anyone should do when hearing about a small percentage performance increase and it's interesting that the results are fast but not otherworldly. Yes, 1:38 is fast for an 800m but in the right race with the perfect pacemaker, I think Rudisha could have approached that in his prime. Same thing if you convert Ron Clarke to 26:09. That's not completely outside what Bekele or Geb could have run in their primes.