Genzebe Dibaba Out of Worlds

Armstronglivs wrote:

An increase of 7% VO2 max will translate into gains.

...

Hence, to improve VO2 max is always advantageous - whether it is done through training or doping. Or a combination of both.

^This. That's of course why it is common to improve it through the deadly combination of training, altitude, and blood doping (EPO or not), see Paula, Rita, Asbel, or just in general the superior Kenyan performances.

As for as blood doping studies go, there are numerous ones since the 40s. While not all of them have investigated Hct, VO2max, and performance, the common take-home message is that blood doping enhances Hct, and thereby (to a smaller extent) VO2max, and thereby (to a smaller extent) performance in endurance events.

Very roughly, within a few SDs, one can go with a factor of two for (sub) elites, unless the Hct increase is ridiculously high (think Ramzi and Liliya - Aragon will correct me soon with counterexamples of course):

Hct up by 10% --> VO2max up by 5% --> performance up by 2.5%.

Jama Aden was caught with epo

That mo farah tries to distance himself but stays working with Aden says it all

Same for the dibaba sisters

It cannot be emphasised too much that a sub-elite athlete, already well-trained and therefore not a "recreational" athlete in the usual sense, increased his VO2 max from 55 to 63 (average is 35, elite is 70+) through taking EPO. He did this in only 7 weeks. The drug also enabled him to train harder and better - a point that can be over-looked. EPO is a total game-changer. But all the athletes know that already; it is only here that there are some who refuse to see that, because to accept that as fact strips away any belief they may have in the credibility of their favoured sport.

*Correction: he increased his VO2 max from 58 to 63 - a 7% increase.

Oh I grasped all that. I just discarded the sensation, and drew my conclusions. I read your rebuttal, and it seems that all of my points still stand.

Oh that is new. I'm ruining the sport by reminding everyone what is public knowledge, and what is public speculation. I'm flattered you think I have any great influence in this sport. Judging by the general reaction here, no one seems to be persuaded by my comments and opinions. At most, I'm ruining a few threads (but I'm never alone) which devolve into doping speculation, by asking for the basis for such speculation, and sometimes correcting some misstatements. I was told that the "prosecutor's petition" was "full of facts". That sounds highly interesting to me, as one who asks for so many facts. Am I ruining the sport by asking which facts, with specificity? Was it just another bluff? I never said, and would never say "well, it doesn't even work anyway so what's the issue?". If you want to start a separate conversation about EPO effectiveness, you cannot show that by court verdicts and sanctions.

Surely you recall when I discussed the Stray-Gundersen altitude study with Aragon, showing one group increased VO2max, while their 5K time-trial actually got slower. Your factor of 2 was also discussed, looking slightly optimistic in this instance, with one group showing a factor of 3 (3.9% VO2max only brought 1.3% performance), and in the group that slowed down, a factor of -9.7 (3.4% VO2max improvement brought a 0.35% slowdown). VO2max as a proxy for performance does not replace performance as a proxy for performance.

casual obsever wrote:

Very roughly, within a few SDs, one can go with a factor of two for (sub) elites, unless the Hct increase is ridiculously high (think Ramzi and Liliya - Aragon will correct me soon with counterexamples of course):

Hct up by 10% --> VO2max up by 5% --> performance up by 2.5%.

The fact that jama Aden's entourage had the epo means it probably is effective

Unless jama is into placebos

rekrunner wrote:

Surely you recall when I discussed the Stray-Gundersen altitude study with Aragon, showing one group increased VO2max, while their 5K time-trial actually got slower.

Your factor of 2 was also discussed, looking slightly optimistic in this instance, with one group showing a factor of 3 (3.9% VO2max only brought 1.3% performance), and in the group that slowed down, a factor of -9.7 (3.4% VO2max improvement brought a 0.35% slowdown).

VO2max as a proxy for performance does not replace performance as a proxy for performance.

casual obsever wrote:

Very roughly, within a few SDs, one can go with a factor of two for (sub) elites, unless the Hct increase is ridiculously high (think Ramzi and Liliya - Aragon will correct me soon with counterexamples of course):

Hct up by 10% --> VO2max up by 5% --> performance up by 2.5%.

VO2 max is not "a proxy for performance", because other factors such as training and technique will play a part, but increased fitness - which is what improved VO2 max is - will be contributory to performance gains. If it were not so then there would be no point in improving training efficiency, either. Elites wouldn't show elite levels of VO2 max if VO2 max wasn't a factor in performance. As usual, a straw-man argument on your part to somehow suggest that improved ability to use oxygen won't translate into gains for endurance athletes (it actually helps sprinters, too, because they can train harder for longer) because the ratio is indeterminate. There does not need to be an exact and invariable ratio between gains to VO2 max and performance gains for there to be undeniable, if individually variable, performance gains.

Of course the most absurd part of rekrunner's argument is that even though it has been shown that recreational runners will generally improve their 10k performance time by 10-15% off a 5% increase in VO2 max his view is that elites will only enjoy an insignificant benefit at best through boosting their VO2 max through doping if not experience an actual deterioration in performance. I am

sure he would not make the same argument if the improvements in VO2 max were achieved naturally. If, as he protests, he truly cared about doping in sports he would be concerned at its growing incidence and not spend tedious hours attempting to negate its clearly demonstrable effects on performance.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Of course the most absurd part of rekrunner's argument is that even though it has been shown that recreational runners will generally improve their 10k performance time by 10-15% off a 5% increase in VO2 max his view is that elites will only enjoy an insignificant benefit at best through boosting their VO2 max through doping if not experience an actual deterioration in performance. I am

sure he would not make the same argument if the improvements in VO2 max were achieved naturally. If, as he protests, he truly cared about doping in sports he would be concerned at its growing incidence and not spend tedious hours attempting to negate its clearly demonstrable effects on performance.

That's an interesting point with rekrunner. He knows that altitude training will increase red cell count which in return improves performance (primarily through VO2max). He has said he would like to see more athletes utilize altitude training instead of doping - which is a good thing. Similarly though, the same increase in red cell count from 02-vector doping (ESAs or blood transfusions) would produce the same benefit gains seen with altitude training.

In one of the ABP-hematological anomaly CAS hearings, anti-doping expert Dr. Schumacher testified that "high HGB values enhance sporting performance." (CAS/2016/0/4463). And elevated hemoglobin levels could originate from either altitude training or ESAs/blood transfusions (anti-doping experts can distinguish between the two primarily from the characteristics of the RET%, and how long & how high at altitude).

So for rekrunner to theorize that ESA/blood transfusioned-induced elevated HGB is ineffective is contradicting the fact that altitude training-induced elevated HGB enhances performance.

This is getting ridiculous wrote:

You're either trolling rekunner to liven up the conversation or you know nothing about the world of PED use in elite sport.

He's got to be an employee at this place, or the IAAF or nike.

There are ways to show effect, and mere possession is not one of them.

By all accounts, Aden is into injectable vitamins.

Earlier, you said, "to improve VO2 max is always advantageous". I just provided you a peer-reviewed result where, despite a VO2max gain, the performance improvement was negative. This is not quibbling over ratios, but over sign. I did not "suggest that improved ability to use oxygen won't translate into gains for endurance athletes" (this straw-man belongs to you), but that VO2max improvements was a bad way to measure performance improvement.

Has it "been shown that recreational runners will generally improve their 10k performance time by 10-15% off a 5% increase in VO2 max"? You have a tendency to say things without providing references, or in the rare case you do find a reference, it does not corroborate what you said.

The peer reviewed counter-example of performance deterioration I gave you was from an altitude study, where "improvements in VO2 max were achieved naturally." How can you be so sure I would not argue that, after having directly quoted me arguing that?

I did not theorize that elevated HGB is ineffective, but that VO2max improvement was a bad way to measure performance improvement. The above mentioned altitude study is one I refer to often when I argue that altitude training also enhances performance.

When you can't respond intelligently, why not inject more baseless gossip into the discussion?

rekrunner wrote:

If you know your history, it is public knowledge that Lance failed 4 cortisone tests in July 1999,

Not really sure what you mean by "public knowledge". For people who actually read about what happened they will understand that his test results did not reach the threshold to be considered positive:

"newspaper Le Monde reported that traces of a banned corticosteroid had been found in his system, although not enough to meet the threshold of a positive test."

Amazing that you argued endlessly that Radcliffe's dodgy blood scores did not pass a threshold to be considered as a positive bio passport violation and yet you are now doing the opposite with Armstrong's cortisone test results ....

doping watcher wrote:

Not really sure what you mean by "public knowledge". For people who actually read about what happened they will understand that his test results did not reach the threshold to be considered positive:

"newspaper Le Monde reported that traces of a banned corticosteroid had been found in his system, although not enough to meet the threshold of a positive test."

Amazing that you argued endlessly that Radcliffe's dodgy blood scores did not pass a threshold to be considered as a positive bio passport violation and yet you are now doing the opposite with Armstrong's cortisone test results ....

By "public knowledge" I have already referred you to the published and well publicized CIRC report commissioned by the UCI. Here is what the CIRC wrote:

"Lance Armstrong was tested 15 times during the 1999 Tour and four of these tests were positive for corticosteroids, on 4, 14, 15 and 21 July 1999. "

So, if anyone ever says "Lance never failed a test", I would say that the UCI officially disagrees, and between Lance apologists and the UCI, I agree with the official body that conducted the anti-doping testing.

See below for some more links to what I mean by public knowledge.

It's surprising to read "not enough to meet the threshold" when corticosteroids didn't seem to be considered a threshold drug.

I did not once argue that Radcliffe's "dodgy blood scores" did not pass a threshold, but that all of the "dodgy" scores had plausible non-doping explanations for passing the threshold. Three of her scores exceeded the general population sea-level threshold, and only one exceeded the general population altitude threshold. Only one of these three would have been a candidate for an ABP passport violation, and it 1) occurred in the off-season, shortly after a lengthy stay at 2400m altitude, and 2) did not exceed the general population altitude threshold.

Some more examples of public knowledge:

The failed corticosteroid tests are discussed here starting on page 171. There is no mention of thresholds.

rekrunner wrote:

The failed corticosteroid tests are discussed here starting on page 171. There is no mention of thresholds.

https://s27394.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CIRC-Report-2015.pdf

You really need things spelled out to you

ance Armstrong, maillot jaune du 86e Tour de France, a subi un contrôle, le 4 juillet, à 17 heures, à la fin de la première étape de la course entre Montaigu et Challans. L'examen par le Laboratoire national de lutte contre le dopage (LNLD), situé à Châtenay-Malabry (Hauts-de-Seine), a permis de déceler des traces de triamcinolone acétonide, un corticoïde de synthèse, dans ses urines. Cependant, l'analyse n'a pas été déclarée positive, le rapport testostérone sur épitestostérone étant trop faible. Il était de 0,2 quand la limite de positivité est fixée à 6.

As do you. It doesn't change the outcome, but I would need if cortico-steroids (triamcinolone acetonide) and testosterone (anabolic steroid) are the same thing spelled out for me. I'm no expert, but this looks like someone (Le Monde reporters?) mixing up two different things. Detection of trace amounts of a substance doesn't sound like the result of a testosterone/epitestosterone ratio calculation.

Furthermore, it seems highly inconsistent that if it wasn't considered a positive test result in 1999, that Lance and his team would have felt the need to scramble and falsify a doctor's note, possibly commiting a crime if not a medical ethics violation, with the understanding that he would have been sanctioned if he hadn't produced one.

But regardless, I consider UCI of 2015 as having the final word on this topic. If it boils down to an authority contest between ESPN or Le Monde, and the UCI CIRC, I think I will choose the UCI CIRC as most qualified authority.

Here is the UCI's final conclusion in 2015 about the UCI's failure to follow their own rules in 1999:

"Therefore, disciplinary proceedings should have been opened by UCI against both

Laurent Brochard and Lance Armstrong following their positive tests for

prohibited substances on the basis that they did not declare the use of a medicine

justifying that substance on their doping control form. This is regardless of the fact

that they subsequently produced a prescription explaining that use after testing

positive. Lidocaine and corticosteroids were on the list of categories of doping

substances and methods prohibited by the UCI."

"Further, when a medical certificate was produced for Lance Armstrong, it should have

been obvious to UCI that the medical certificate provided by his doctor was backdated

and solely provided to justify a posteriori the traces of triamcinolone found in the rider’s urine."

For completeness:

"On the basis of the foregoing facts and of article 43 of the UCI ADR applicable at

the time, the UCI acted in breach of its own ADR in asking the riders’ entourages

to provide a medical certificate after they tested positive when they had not

declared the use of a substance on the doping control form."

"The UCI failed to apply its own rules in the Laurent Brochard and Lance Armstrong

cases which constituted a serious breach of its obligations as the international

governing body for cycling to govern the sport correctly. "

"If after the Brochard case Article 43 of the UCI ADR was considered to be unfair or

inappropriate, it should have been amended or abolished by the UCI."

"Lance Armstrong admitted that he took the drug without therapeutic motivation

and only to enhance his performance. His doctor issued a certificate where not only was

the date wrong, but also what it attested. The CIRC considers that it was a case of a

false medical certificate and therefore the case should have been

reported to the criminal authorities and the relevant medical boards."

The facts of the investigation of "Operación Rial" are all spelled out in the prosecutor's petition/affidavit. I didn't read anywhere where the prosecutor uses language such as we think...we speculate...we surmise, etc., that Aden was "putting the health of its elite athletes at "serious risk" by supplying them with up to eight types of substances." These are some of the facts that the prosecutor would present at trial. Do you dispute some or all of the facts disclosed in the petition? Do you have other information to the contrary?

I would think the prosecutor would have to more than "suspicion" to file a petition that's requesting jail time if Aden is convicted.

It's not "guilt by association" but the totality of the circumstances that gives justification of reasonable "suspicion," IMO:

- Aden is arrested in "Operación Rial" and a petition is later filed requesting jail time.

- Four athletes under his tutelage are convicted dopers (Driouch, Traby, Desalegn & Balla).

- Driouch initially admitted that Aden had doped him before he later recanted his confession.

Short of a confession from Aden, what other evidence would you personally need to justify suspicion that Aden may be involved in doping practices with athletes? If this was a Russian coach under the exact same set of circumstances would that make any difference?

Curious: What is your belief of what was going on in Operación Rial? Do you believe that Aden had no involvement whatsoever with the doping products confiscated? What do you think those doping products were going to be used for? Do you think the doping products were intended for those athletes at the camp or for someone else?

Can't find him or can't extradite him? (I'm not familiar with International law on the extradition of arrestees that are charged with a criminal offense pending a trial).

This article from "Hornnews24.com "(June /2018) states:

"No date has been set for the trial and there could be difficulties, given Aden, who has close ties to the Qatar Athletics Federation, would need to return to Spain"