casual obsever wrote:
In the meantime, we have learned that even 200 ml blood transfusions don't violate the generous thresholds of the ABP (similar with EPO). Only if you go full throttle like Kiptum and have bad luck that you get tested shortly after using (and have a functioning doorbell or already two "missed" (rather: evaded) tests), then you get into trouble.
And even "gentle" threshold violations (think for example 300 ml blood transfusions) only lead to "passport suspicious" (Inge, Kiprop), wilder ones to "likely doping" (Farah, Rupp), which will cause more testing, nothing else.
[For reference, see for example Ashenden 2011, or the recent Kenyan sub-elite study]
I wonder how many would, on your recommendation, actually see, for reference, Ashenden 2011, and the recent Kenyan sub-elite study.
It is not surprising that Ashenden did not violate the ABP, given the study design and access to the ABP software: They started out with low doses, and, using the ABP software as feedback, gradually increased the dosage while trying not to violate ABP limits. Scientists were able to succeed using the ABP software as a tool. They managed to increase red-blood cell mass to a level comparable to the legal method of high altitude training.
For athletes, increasing red-blood cell mass while escaping detection, is not the main goal. Most athletes are interested in the expected performance improvements. Unfortunately Ashenden did not measure performance. (The Kenyan sub-elites study did measure performance, but as you well know, it was uncontrolled, and these near elite Kenyans did not really try, running like the best high-school girls, improving their 3000m time trial from half-marathon pace to 10k pace. LonestarXC referred to another study finding a small increase (4.7%) in power for amateur cyclists. These all seem quite distant from a thread about a 58 minute half-marathon performance.)
When referring to the 2011 study, I found these complementary points most interesting:
- They tested 10 athletes.
- With the "generous" ABP thresholds, one athlete (10%) tested positive before any EPO injections. A 10% "false positive" rate would render the ABP useless, with most ABP cases ending up decided by the CAS.
- Two of the athletes (20%) had reticulytes lower than 0.48% at baseline. 5% is expected.
- The low reticulyte counts led the scientists to address the well studied issue of instrument bias. (See for reference, Ashenden 2004).
- With 99.9% as the target, two athletes (20%) reached 99.88% and 99.87%, an accuracy achievable by scientists with ABP software. While not leading to a positive ABP finding, it would be useful intelligence for further target testing.
- "The passport's utility as an intelligence-gathering tool should not be understated."
- An acknowledged limitation of the study was the lack of a washout phase, which would have "most likely been flagged by the software as being abnormal during the weeks after injections ceased". "It has been well-documented that a nadir in OFF-hr score is reached 10–14 days after rhEPO injections cease (Gore et al. 2003)."