WTF SERIOUSLY: Lornah Salpeter just ran 2:19:46 Prague ein

Look up the wikipedia article on "Marathon world record progression". There is visual chart for men. The dramatic decrease is not recently (only few minutes the pass decade), but circa 1965-1970s (where 20min drop are seen). That's when people switch from Zatopek-style HIIT to Lydiard's LSD. (Matt Fitzgerald book on 80-20% training summarizes this history in more detail).

There is even more dramatic drop for women (because they joined the sport late in history). If you argue that's due doping alone, then you have to accuse hundreds or even thousands of today's finisher (including many hobby joggers in local races) as dopers.

Maybe, maybe not. Picking 1960 for distance events ignores the change from interval style training to Lydiard style training. Shortly after 1960, we saw significant drops by Australians to 13:16, 27:40, and 2:09:37, all before Mexico City 1968 piqued everyone's interest in blood doping.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Armstronglivs does make a good point, in 1960 men could run 10.1, 20.4, 45, 1:45, 3:35, 13:40, 28 and 2:14/15. The longer the event the closer women are to catching up. There is clearly some massive drug abuse going on in the women's marathon at the moment, and the spate elite doping busts of 2:18-2:21 category suggests the obvious.

I know Lydiard is from New Zealand. Should have included Cerutty too. Maybe others.

There was a shift in emphasis away from Franz Stampfl's interval training of the past.

Down under in the 1960s wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. Picking 1960 for distance events ignores the change from interval style training to Lydiard style training. Shortly after 1960, we saw significant drops by Australians to 13:16, 27:40, and 2:09:37, all before Mexico City 1968 piqued everyone's interest in blood doping.

Good points.

Here word for word from a 2004 review paper (doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2003.007195):

HISTORY

The first alleged use of blood boosting in sport was in the 1960s, when a French four times winner of the Tour de France (1961–1964) was named as one of the first cyclists to use the technique. Widespread use among endurance athletes (especially running, cycling, and cross country skiing) started after the 1968 Olympic Games...

And here are the best WR per decade (men's (mid) distance), highlighting the biggest steps:

Dista: 1950s –– 1960s –– 1970s –– 1980s –– 1990s –– 2000s –– 2010s

800::: 1:45.7. – 1:44.40 – 1:42.33 – 1:41.73 – 1:41.11 – NA NA N – 1:40.91

1500:: 3:36.0. – 3:33.1. – 3:32.03 – 3:29.46 – 3:26.00 – NA NA N – NA NA N

5000:: 13:35.0 – 13:16.6 – 13:08.4 – 12:58.4 – 12:39.7 – 12:37.4 – NA NA N

10000: 28:30.4 – 27:39.4 – 27:22.4 – 27:08.2 – 26:22.8 – 26:17.5 – NA NA N

Marat: 2:15:17 – 2:09:36 – 2:09:06 – 2:06:50 – 2:05:42 – 2:03:59 – 2:01:39

+1. You don't have to keep explaining yourself anymore. You have made your point. No need to waste your time justifying everything to feed these trolls. Let them believe what they want.

Obviously.

The first sentence is obviously correct. The second? Doubt it, because a) Seppelt's leak said otherwise (e.g., more suspicious gold than bronze medals) and b) because more is to be gained at the top (financially and reputation-wise).

Doubt it, all of it.

The first part, probably. That is statistically confirmed by Seppelt's leak, as summarized in the Sunday Times overview from 2015.

The second part? Negative effects outweigh the gains? Kiptum, Radcliffe, Shobukhova, Jeptoo, Sumgong etc. and their coaches thought otherwise, and their success speaks for that too.

Obviously.

Yeah...sure, whatever you say coach. Try this on for size: Here's a list of top Kenyan female marathoners who served bans for doping (with one provisionally suspended for an ABP violation):

Jeptoo/2:18:57 (*Boston CR)

Chepchirchir/2:19:47 (ABP provisional suspension)

Kabuu/2:20:21

Sumgong/2:20:48 (*Olympic Champion)

Cheromei/2:21:30

Kiyara/2:23:47

Chepchumba/2:25:46

Muraga/2:26:00

Asiago/2:37:24

Let's switch gears to the Russian female marathoners: 5 out of their top 10 runners have served doping bans! ?

(1) Shobukhova/2:18:20 (*Chicago CR)

(4) Abitova/2:22:19

(5) Konoval/2:22:27

(9) Mayorova/2:23:52

(10) Timofeyeva/2:24:14

Ukraine's fastest female served a ban for doping:

Hamera-Shmyrko/2:22:09 (NR)

Belarus' fastest female served a ban for doping:

Duliba/2:21:29 (NR)

Colombia's fastest female served a ban for doping:

Caballero/2:26:17 (NR)

China's two fastest females served bans for doping:

Yingjie/2:19:39 (NR)

Jiali/2:22:41 (2 bans: ABP hematological anomalies & EPO positive. Lol).

I probably missed some, especially with the former Soviet block nations - the list is exhaustive.

Don't be so oblivious to this information....coach.

The doping with female marathoners is crazy! wrote:

China's two fastest females served bans for doping:

Yingjie/2:19:39 (NR)

Jiali/2:22:41 (2 bans: ABP hematological anomalies & EPO positive. Lol).

One of Renato's Chinese female athletes served a doping suspension for performance in the marathon (that was after Renato coached her) and was one of three athletes he coached in China with drug suspensions. Of course she also had suspicious blood value numbers during the time she was in camp with Renato.

He will deny this, but this is all confirmed by his own posts here on Letsrun.com.

Didn't Renato already explain this? He was the one who initially flagged the suspicious blood values and contacted the doping authorities.

Milton Friedman wrote:

Didn't Renato already explain this? He was the one who initially flagged the suspicious blood values and contacted the doping authorities.

No, that was a completely different doper. I know it is hard to keep up with the shifting excuses if you aren't paying careful attention...

Another one I forgot:

Croatia's fastest female served a ban for doping:

Nemec/2:25:44 (NR)

Renato Canova wrote:

3- The most part of top athletes are CLEAN. It's not true that, without doping (in long distances), is not possible to achieve the best results. I personally had several athletes bettering some WR, and training without using any external aid. This means I know that THIS IS POSSIBLE (something people here think NOT possible).

Doubt it, all of it.

This is the main reason because I don't want to speak anymore of something but training.

If you doubt that athletes (that I coached) able to achieve a WR in clean way, were really clean (for me a FACT, not some opinion), it's absolutely useless to continue to discuss about blood doping.

I repeat, the problem is not that you think doping can help the athletes, but that you think WITHOUT doping athletes can't run fast. You refuse (like many pseudo-scientists) to accept that there is that possibility, and every REAL scientist interested to study REAL PHENOMEN, needs to have an empiric approach, studying what really happens (therefore, how is possible to run fast in clean way).

The common approach is to see effects of blood doping, starting from the point that several top athletes used blood doping.

But nobody goes to study WHY athletes not using any doping were able to run faster than doped athletes.

This means to start every study with one idea only : this is called "stereotipy", and of sure is not a scientific approach.

I doubt that WADA and the antidoping organization are not interested in investigating the reasons because some clean training can produce analogue results of doped training, because the answer is against the interest of the Agency, and of the big business that antidoping is at the moment (and continues to grow).

The big pharma Companies are not interested in any research that can show some medicine USELESS for increasing any type of athletic performance, since a big part of their income comes from people doing sport at different levels.

But coaches who train athletes without using any doping (and I'm not the only one, there are in the World a lot coaching in clean way many of the best athletes) well know what is possible to do with training only, something that all the believers in DOPING ONLY absolutely don't know.

If this is your sport, I repeat again : good luck, enjoy every time some athlete (better if Kenyan) is positive, and never enjoy for any top performance, thinking all the athletes are not honest. Very sad way of living.

Agreed. casual, I like many of your posts but I think you went a bit far there.

hth wrote:

Agreed. casual, I like many of your posts but I think you went a bit far there.

That I doubt it's possible to get a world record without doping?

That's not exactly far-fetched.

We have seen evidence that roughly half of the elite is doping, and seen several expert statements that blood doping alone can provide a boost of up to 3%, or even in excess of 3%.

Finally Renato has confessed to doping his runners, or at least consenting to doping his runners. Renato said in #4: “Blood doping is more important in SHORT DISTANCES (800m to 1500m) than in longer distances.”

Renato concedes here that it is IMPORTANT period, but he is saying it is not as important in longer distances. Regardless, thank you Renato for finally confessing that blood doping is important.

Renato Canova wrote:

1- DOPING exists, and the kind of it depends on the historical period.

2- Several athletes, including top, used doping.

4- Blood doping is more important in SHORT DISTANCES (800 - 1500m) than in long distances. This because the increase in AEROBIC POWER is higher than the collateral effect of REDUCTION OF THE VELOCITY OF THE CIRCULATION, and also because the athletes of middle distances normally don't agree (and don't like) to train in proper way for increasing, with training, thaier aerobic power. Longer is the distance, smaller is the percentage of Aerobic Power the athletes have to use, and for a race of 2 hours the negative effects are superior of the positive effects.

.

So as I said it appears that you have used blood doping, as you say it is important, Renato. The fact that you think blood doping is more important in the 800 and 1500 would explain why the presumably doped Silas Kiplagat ran 3:27 and Ronald Kwemoi ran 3:28 but not as well at longer distances.

jiaaf wrote:

So as I said it appears that you have used blood doping, as you say it is important, Renato. The fact that you think blood doping is more important in the 800 and 1500

If you're going to twist someone's words around, don't out yourself in the very next sentence. Obviously Canova meant blood doping is more effective - i.e., more important a factor in performance - at middle distance. And he's entirely correct about that, though not about why, unless by "circulation velocity" he's somehow referring to rates of gas exchange.

Simply put, it's not possible for O2 consumption rate in a marathon to be anywhere near what it is in a middle distance race. Setting aside that it's an easier effort overall, it doesn't lower pH in muscle cells to the point where high O2 consumption rates are possible. Your "maxVO2" workout is not your marathon pace.

It doesn't matter how many extra blood cells you load up on, it won't make any difference to what is already not an oxygen-intensive exercise. About the best effect it might have is to prevent anemia from high volume training.

You are the one twisting words and I never outed myself you idiot.

So, you can deny and name-call. But can refute what I just said about gas transport? It will amuse me to see you try.