KAMWOROR 57.59 WR

Everyone is looking for an edge wrote:

LoneStarXC wrote:

With a side dish of Nandrolone

...or in Wangari's case - testosterone.

http://dailysport.co.ke/2018/12/10/john-mwangi-suspended-from-competing-for-use-of-testosterone/

Who, here, would give a bar for any of the former Eastern Bloc performances, and yet continue to maintain the genuiness of records in East African running? Doping does not have to be state-sponsored to be endemic, which is what it has been shown to be in Kenya (and Ethiopia). Cierpinski might just as well be a "white Kenyan".

Armstronglivs wrote:

Everyone is looking for an edge wrote:

...or in Wangari's case - testosterone.

http://dailysport.co.ke/2018/12/10/john-mwangi-suspended-from-competing-for-use-of-testosterone/

Who, here, would give a bar for any of the former Eastern Bloc performances, and yet continue to maintain the genuiness of records in East African running? Doping does not have to be state-sponsored to be endemic, which is what it has been shown to be in Kenya (and Ethiopia). Cierpinski might just as well be a "white Kenyan".

Go away, you useless poster.

Climate-change denial works well for doping, too.

The 10k wr is 26:17.

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)."

you people are boring

All about the money! Why not run10000m at World championships instead?

There's no "testing positive" on an ABP case - it's based on hematological anomalies (Hgb and RET%) at a 99.9% specificity (less in 1 in 1000 chance the values are normal and highly unlikely that it's the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition). In addition, evidence of supraphysiological increase in red cell mass in and around competition periods (i.e.,a doping scheme) is what is usually required for an ABP violation resulting in a ban. Of course, three (3) anti-doping experts have to unanimously agree on the findings before any action can be taken by the IAAF.

The situation with the subject that showed the 99.9% specificity before any EPO administration (OFF-score:138/Hgb:16.9/RET:0.26%), and the other two subjects with RET% that fell outside the reference range was addressed in the text:

"It was beyond the scope of this study to partition out definitively whether naturally low reticulocyte values amongst our cohort, or instrument bias, caused the flagged baseline OFF-hr score. Our data do not exclude that there was a combination of these two possibilities. With regard to the former, in the hypothetical scenario where an athlete with inherently low values (i.e., among the 5% of subjects expected to fall outside the reference range) were to present a flagged result in the ABP programme, follow-up tests would quickly inform the expert panel that this was most likely attributable to biological not doping causes."

Definitely useful for target testing but if it's the result of blood tranfusions then all target testing in the world would be futile.

In the context of this 2011 Ashenden study, we are not concerned with "an ABP case", but what it takes for the ABP software to flag microdose EPO doping. Forgive me for calling it "tested positive".

On the one hand, we see that scientists with access to the ABP software succeeded to game the system, by staying within the "generous" ABP thresholds.

On the other hand, the same "generous" thresholds flagged one of the subjects before any EPO injections.

Of course the false positive situation was addressed, with important conclusions, re-emphasizing the importance of equipment calibration and quality controls, and the importance of expert interpretation. In the real world, in uncontrolled conditions, analysts will not know if the ABP software falsely flags athletes, like this test subject, who record, for example, a high off score due to a naturally occurring value, or due to instrument bias.

This is interesting to me because a common and recurring theme over the past few years is to deny external non-doping effects like instrument bias, or the possibility that experts would correctly reject profiles flagged by the ABP software, either as inconclusive (needing more data), or as having a plausible explanation. And yet, here is another Ashenden study, as late as 2011, still talking about the possibility of instrument bias, the need in some cases for further samples, and the need for expert panel assessment.

With respect to "all target testing in the world would be futile" the ABP can also detect the blood changing effects of blood transfusions.