'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

I can list for you the athletes I personally coached :

Kenenisa Bekele (after his record on track)

Saaeed Shaheen (steeple)

Moses Mosop (25,000 - 30000m)

Florence Kiplagat (HM)

Among the WCh and Olympics in the last 15 years :

Caleb Ndiku (3000m indoor)

Abel Kirui (Marathon)

Greoffrey Kirui (Marathon)

Dorcus Inzikuru (steeple W)

Irene Cheptai (Cross)

But, how explained before, everything, at top level, comes from the coach. And I know the behavior of Kenyan coaches : somebody (such as Patrick Sang or Brother Colm) are also EDUCATORS for all the situations of life, and their athletes are clean, because the ethic is the first step in their evolution ; other coaches are only ex-athletes without enough knowledge, and follow ideas passed from a word of mouthes.

Knowing the coaches, we can already know, with 99% of approximation, in which group there is the "idea" of doping, and which group are "clean".

And athletes Always training in a clean group, when decide to do something different change also thei behavior : they start to go far from the group step by step, avoid to look in the eyes the old teammates when talk together, and clearly are not comfortable to continue like in the past.

So, it's possible somebody can chose different roads, but it's not difficult to understand, in the running community, who is clean and who is not.

Armstronglivs wrote:

... elite athletes trained at altitude who are doping will not volunteer as study subjects. We can only estimate the effects of doping on their performances through indirect evidence. That evidence still suggests a likely benefit, even if its extent cannot be measured exactly.

A minor correction.

Practically no elite athletes have volunteered as subjects (with a few exceptions, none in the tests measuring running speed), therefore the effect on elites alone must be estimated with indirect evidence. There is even less research data about altitude trained elites, but it is not unreasoble that many of them also get some benefit of the method.

Aragon wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

... elite athletes trained at altitude who are doping will not volunteer as study subjects. We can only estimate the effects of doping on their performances through indirect evidence. That evidence still suggests a likely benefit, even if its extent cannot be measured exactly.

A minor correction.

Practically no elite athletes have volunteered as subjects (with a few exceptions, none in the tests measuring running speed), therefore the effect on elites alone must be estimated with indirect evidence. There is even less research data about altitude trained elites, but it is not unreasoble that many of them also get some benefit of the method.

Ah - but that's where a certain non-athlete, non-scientist, mathematician with a bent for statistics would disagree. Even on a "paucity of evidence".

You're doing a better job of identifying dopers than the testers. Looks like science can't keep up with belief.

For reasons I've stated (elites tend to benefit less from blood doping, all the academic research has some limitations, high baseline total Hb can explain low-responders) I wouldn't also be surprised at all if it turns out that high altitude resident show barely no improvement or improvement that can be achieved with legal means.

Still in the end even elite high altitude athletes are a non-homogenous group with differences in lung capacity, mitochondrial activity etc ald therefore I am not convinced that they are all non-responders even when the only study addressing the effect of blood doping (rHuEPO) on high altitude Kenyans had serious issues and limitations

Aragon, I fully agree what you say. I want only to point out that is not true that " the only study addressing the effect of blood doping (rHuEPO) on high altitude Kenyans had serious issues and limitations". Really, the study doesn't have limitation, but is a total bullshit without any common sense.

The reality is that NEVER there was some study about the training of top athletes living and training in altitude, and this fact is a big limitation for understanding the effects of doping, too.

If a correct training and the assumption of EPO look at the same goal (increasing ability to transport Oxygen), is not possible to study the effects of EPO without knowing the AEROBIC LIMITS that is possible to reach with training. And, if at the end of the process the limits are the MAXIMAL that the body can reach, it's not possible to overtake these limits with any other external factor.

It's like a glass : when only half glass is full of water, adding other water can give advantage. But when already the glass is full, everything we want to add goes out of the glass, and can't be useful also if you are still thirsty.

You have said yourself that blood Hcrt drops with hard training of athletes YOU KNOW ARE CLEAN!!! so logically doping will overcome that and keep the glass full.

Obviously there's more to fitness gains rather than purely oxygen transport and athletes get better despite that slight drain of blood count dropping. Add the two together (training and doping to offset the drop) and there is your difference maker.

Please, give me a list of all the advantages you can have taking EPO, and also disadvantages.

What I see when everybody talks about the advantages, this is essentially the increase of the level of Hb and consequentely of Hct.

But this advantage doesn't continue indefinitely. If you have Hct of 43 and you can raise it till 46 maybe you have some advantage, but if you continue to enhance till 50 maybe you run slower, because in the balanced functions of our body, if you go up in some ability, you go down in some other.

Which is the difference to enhance the transport of O2 by training or by EPO ?

With training, you can enhance your ability of transport BECAUSE YOU INCREASE THE TOTAL VOLUME OF BLOOD IN YOUR BODY TILL 20%, something all the physiologists NOT studying top athletes and their training DON'T BELIEVE POSSIBLE, since they put the percentage around 5% with a max of 10%.

This means that your Hct goes down because the most part of the increasing volume is the percentage of plasma, so the reduction of the periferal resistance due to less viscosity can produce faster velocity in the blood e circulation.

Hct is a PERCENTAGE, not a QUANTITY. It's the number of RBC multiplicated for the MCV (their volume), so the same number can be producted by a high number of small RBC, or by a small number of big RBC. Of course, in these two situation, that appear the same looking at the same Hct, the behavior of our body is totally different, and this shows WHY a high Hct doesn't mean automatically a good base for running fast.

Higher velocity of blood circulation means also higher ability to remove lactate from the muscle fibers, and the ability to quickly remove lactate can be considered one of the most important characteristics for a high aerobic ability.

I hope that the discussion can be again in scientific direction, provoking the end of boring personal duels without nothing interesting that are, sorry, the only argument in this thread, till now.

20% higher blood volume plus more rbcs. Rocket fuel.

Obviously too many is bad as well but that number is high. Just ask Mr 60% Bjarne Riis.

physics defiant wrote:

20% higher blood volume plus more rbcs. Rocket fuel.

Obviously too many is bad as well but that number is high. Just ask Mr 60% Bjarne Riis.

no such thing as higher rbs....thats just a "belief"

what is strange is how gary mocks us all for looking at results and DATA and tells us we are fools to "believe" that doping is real, and once everyone to "believe" in his "beliefs" hahaha

well colorado just got the lockdown, "safe passage" papers supposed to be handed out later today here at work...yo renato is italy pulling this nazi sh*t as well? like wtf? whats next, making certain people wear yellow star of david on their sleeve?

physics defiant wrote:

20% higher blood volume plus more rbcs. Rocket fuel.

Obviously too many is bad as well but that number is high. Just ask Mr 60% Bjarne Riis.

Or look at Kiptum, who ran the then world record half marathon with an Hb = 18.9 g/dl, thus Hct of 59 - 60. So much for people have to slow down when Hct > 50.

If there are aerobic limits then how is it that athletes can continue to get faster? We see this not only with individual athletes but with the performance improvements that have occurred in the sport over many years.

When training remains a constant - and training methods have little changed since the 70's - then something else is contributing to an athlete's improvements. Either they have not reached their aerobic maximum or they are adding to it - with drugs.

Sled dogs and racehorses have more than two times the VO2 max of humans, built in blood doping and a poorer heat dispersing ability and yet they somehow don't spontaneously ignite as Jon Orange would have us believe happens with a mere 4% increase.

Maybe there is something to this doping not violating the laws of physics and thermoregulation.

Did Kiptum say he felt a little hotter after his record?

Renato Canova wrote:

...also higher ability to remove lactate from the muscle fibers, and the ability to quickly remove lactate can be considered one of the most important characteristics for a high aerobic ability.

I hope that the discussion can be again in scientific direction, provoking the end of boring personal duels without nothing interesting that are, sorry, the only argument in this thread, till now.

I believe increased circulating levels of EPO have been show to increase lactate buffering capacity without any increase in actual hematocrit.

For the sake of science I wish world class runners could try serious doping, such as hct being elevated to just under 60%, immediately after retiring. Of course this is a fantasy that can't happen, but it would at least be interesting to see what sort of effect there would be.

physics defiant wrote:

Sled dogs and racehorses have more than two times the VO2 max of humans, built in blood doping and a poorer heat dispersing ability and yet they somehow don't spontaneously ignite as Jon Orange would have us believe happens with a mere 4% increase.

Maybe there is something to this doping not violating the laws of physics and thermoregulation.

Did Kiptum say he felt a little hotter after his record?

Animals are interesting examples of the extremes. A cheetah can sprint at near 100kph for 300m or so but then has to stop to avoid overheating; a pronghorn antelope on the other hand can run for miles at 50kph. The difference must be in how each is able to process oxygen; but the aerobically-boosted antelope clearly has no problem with thermoregulation. It is fatigue that will eventually close it down - not overheating. Like us. And if we dope we simply keep fatigue at bay for longer. Athletes know this.

The Cheetah theory has been disproven by later studies in a more realistic scenario. They likely stop based more on weighing the potential for a kill or not. The way they kill leaves them a bit more of a disadvantage than an animal that is just fleeing or has multiple pack members to share the load. I realize that they do hunt somewhat in groups but still.

Essentially it would be like asking a 400m guy to run down someone and then sticking a sock in his mouth and asking him to choke someone out.

Here's a study:

Coevett wrote:

Yet according to people (mostly Americans) here, Coe, Ovett, Cram were all roiding and blood doping (all three with different coaches), and yet the best we could do as far as middle-distance female running was concerned in the 80's was Kathy Cooke - a terrific runner and one of our best of all time, but clearly one of the most feminine and natural talents there has ever been in women's middle-distance.

As feminine as Koch, not far from Jarmila.

Gelindo Bordin won Olympics 1988 with value of 12.9 Hb and 39.7 Hct.

At the same time, the Italian Record Holder of 1500m, Genny Di Napoli (3'32"78), had normal values of 18.5 / 19 Hb and 52/53 Hct. When this level of Hb was under 18, he felt like anaemic.

This values are individual, and, if in the same event we can have athletes with the same PB but very different values (for example, Christopher Koskei, elder brother of Saaeed Shaheen, won Gold in WCh 1999 with Hct of 39.8 measured in Italy one week before the Championships, while Ronald Kwemoi (3'28"81) has naturally values of 18/18.5 and 51/53), it means that there is in the body some compensation in order to have the best individual balance among ALL the qualities and characteristics at the base of the performance (that are not only Hb and Hct).

That's like saying everyone has the right amount of pigment to avoid sunburn.

We're talking about doping improving performance, not how well people can run with naturally lower numbers.