'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

Armstronglivs wrote:

So, more gaslighting and deflection. You cannot address an argument without evading it.

Your claims are true - because they are true. Circular argument is your specialty. Your "self evident" claims don't require proof, you say. Yet you base most of your arguments on what you maintain is the absence of proof by others. Your reference to "half of the equation" (2+2=5?) is meaningless. You also duck explaining what you mean by your use of "weakness" - because you can't explain it. The emperor truly has no clothes.

OK, I'll play your little game. Let's see what the emperor looks like in all his glory and splendor.

In physics, one outcome of "work", is the conversion of "potential energy" into "kinetic energy". For that to happen, there are two prerequisites: 1) the "potential energy" exists, and 2) and something converts the "potential energy" into "kinetic energy".

My claim is similar to this: for EPO to "work" there are two prerequisites: 1) the potential to improve needs to exist, and 2) EPO needs to convert that potential into kinetics.

Weakness/strength, in this context, is a measure of the potential of the integrated system to produce performance, or the resulting performance. On a sliding scale, weakness produces slower performances, while strength produces faster performances. The factors that produce performance are many, and the models are complex, but nevertheless, without identifying individual factors, and complex interactions, we can unambiguously measure the resulting performances to derive the measure of weakness or strength.

Since the term "work" is often used, but never defined, it seems necessary to define what is meant by "work", and what properties it may possess or be subject to, in order to enable any meaningful discussion. I present my claim as self-evident -- a proposed definition and properties of the otherwise undefined term "work" consistent with how the term is understood in physics, but since you seem adamant, I am prepared to listen to the merits of alternative claims:

- EPO doesn't work, despite strengthening some weakness

- EPO works, despite producing no change in any factor or mechanism

- ?

- etc.

The basis of my doubts, are real world observations, such as all-time performances, and prevalence information found in WADA ADRV lists, prevalence studies, leaked results, as well as a cursory understanding of established performance models, including both aerobic and non-aerobic factors that lead to endurance running performance.

These doubts, and their real world basis, are independent of my observation, that many of the claims with respect to EPO have not been reliably observed. I don't require a "proof", but simply a real world basis that does not beg too much from the question to provide the answer.

With respect to "half the equation", there are two parts to my claim: 1) a weakness exists, and 2) EPO strengthens that weakness. While both you and "casual obsever" have recognized the first part, you both ignored the second. 1 out of 2 is "half". The equation in this instance is "P iff (Q1 and Q2)".

The exhibitionist emperor's clothes are in his closet.

"On the other hand, Canova says he has no first hand experience with blood-doping, and is apparently way too optimistic. E.g., his claims about Jeptoo (was clean in Boston '14 - lol) and Sang (all his athletes are clean - not), repeated in this thread, are evidently wrong".

Casual Observer, from where do you take the conviction that my claims are "evidently wrong" ?

If you talk about Rita, I explained the reasons because, for me, a time under 2:19 in Boston was clearly possible without any doping. I know what she was able to do in training when was with me, and absolutely a normal trend of training, year after year, means she had to be able to run under 2:18 too, in clean way.

About Patrick, if you thing I was wrong because of Cyrus Rutto, I can explain you that he was not directly followed by Patrick, who gave training plans only to the athletes managed by Michel Boiteng, while followed in direct way the athletes of Global in Kaptagat (the two groups have different camps, and meet together only during some session).

On Ugarova: her boost was of an unknown magnitude based on her 16.50 Hgb (49.5 Hct) and corresponding Off-score of 141 at the 2012 EC where her 8th place in the 1500 finals was annulled. She had also set her PB of 4 flat earlier in the month. That's a 9 second improvement from her 4:09 a few years earlier (3.6%).

Another interesting CAS hearing is involving one of Russia's top race walkers Sergey Bakulin. He's coached by the infamous life-time banned Viktor Chegin.

CAS 2015/A/4007

"Further Expert Opinion" (Olaf Schumacher/Michel Audran/Giuseppe d’Onofrio):

"It is our opinion that the erythropoietic stimulation in July 2011 (sample 4) was responsible for the increase of haemoglobin concentration observed in sample 5, which reflects the increase in haemoglobin mass of the athlete …. This condition highly likely improved the athlete’s preparation for the World Championship race in September 2011.The administration of ESA will quite rapidly induce an increase of total haemoglobin mass. This increase is associated with a swift improvement of VO2max, one of the main descriptors of aerobic capacity and endurance performance …. Thus, the athlete was, already during the ESA administration phase, able to train with an increasingly higher aerobic capacity, which is undoubtedly useful during the intensive training leading-up to an important competition. By increasing his training capacity, the performance of the athlete will subsequently benefit independent of the direct effect of the drug itself. The increased reticulocyte count in sample 4 indicates that an ESA injection had recently been performed. Increased reticulocytes counts have been documented during ESA treatment … and are indicative of an increasing red cell mass, which highlights the fact that already at the time of sample 4, the athlete very likely benefitted from his doping. Obviously, the athlete had, at the time of sample 5, a supraphysiologically increased haemoglobin mass. underscored by the increased haemoglobin concentration and the moderate suppression of reticulocyte percentage with increased OFF score, produced by the erythropoietic stimulation documented in July. The increase in haemoglobin mass and the related improvement of VOmax has been shown to persist during at least three or four weeks after the last EPO injection …, indicating that the oxygen transport capacity by red cells remains elevated for longer periods ….In summary, it is thus highly likely that the blood manipulation by the athlete has both assisted his training for and his performances during the subsequent competition in which he participated at the World Championship on 3. September 2011”

Bekulin won the 50km at the 2011 WC - which was, of course, flushed for doping. He also set his PB at the London Olympics finishing 6th, which was also flushed. His two teammates, also coached by Chegin, finished 1st & 3rd, and both medals were also annulled for ABP hematological-anomalies.

Bekulin highest Hgb on his profile in the lead-up training to Daegu was 16.9 (50.7 Hct) with an Off-score of 114 (99.9 specificity), though it dropped down to 15.3 for the IC sample taken at Daegu as he was coming down on the off-phase.

To the bolded, it's not any groundbreaking discovery that dopers with the increase in red cell mass and subsequent endurance capacity can train at a higher aerobic capacity. They'll train at faster speeds; more intense and longer intervals, faster & more intense TTs, more efficient recovery, etc. - again this isn't anything new or surprising. That's why so many of them dope - to train harder and recover better so as to get the edge over their competition....again nothing new, and this has been going on for decades with transfusions & EPO. And so many are in on the act: Distance runners, mid-d runners, marathoners, race walkers, etc.

"These estimates voiced even by experts generally haven't gone through anything reminiscent of a peer-review process".

That pretty much sums up both my opinion about what I think about estimates about performance boost (is the outcome of a case different if the general boost was 0.1-0.4 %, 1-4 % or 10-40 %?) or existence of "highly likely" increased training load of unknown benefit (does it again matter if the use of banned method is proven regardless of training benefit if the training benefit comes via elevated Vo2Max/performance ?)

I should add that I spent at most three minutes reading through the CAS-file of either one of them.

Renato, your often repeated claim that Rita was clean in Boston 2014, and only banned because of the majors organizers, is wrong according to IAAF/AIU/CAS as well as Schumacher et al. I hope you are wrong in implying that they are all corrupt, bribed or bullied by the majors organizers:

As for Rutto, letsrun and others reported his coach as Sang, and his agent as Boeting:

And yes - Rutto’s suspension was upheld.

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

To the bolded, it's not any groundbreaking discovery that dopers with the increase in red cell mass and subsequent endurance capacity can train at a higher aerobic capacity. They'll train at faster speeds; more intense and longer intervals, faster & more intense TTs, more efficient recovery, etc. - again this isn't anything new or surprising. That's why so many of them dope - to train harder and recover better so as to get the edge over their competition....again nothing new, and this has been going on for decades with transfusions & EPO. And so many are in on the act: Distance runners, mid-d runners, marathoners, race walkers, etc.

^This.

EOT

"Work" doesn't need the assistance of a dictionary. Like most words of one syllable, it is easily understood. In this context it can be taken to mean that blood-doping or EPO achieve improvements in performance. It is not the term as it is used in physics.

It is quite obvious and not disputed that to achieve these improvements it requires that an athlete has a capacity to improve and that EPO can influence that capacity to help bring about those improvements. But that is the question - does EPO do this?

Despite the fact that you say improvements in performance are typically produced by a "complex interaction of a variety of factors", you also assert that "weakness" produces poorer performances and "strength" produces faster performances - a claim of bald simplicity that appears to be the complete opposite of what you have just said. If weakness and strength are what determine performance outcomes, how is that the same as "complex interactions of many different factors"?

It is also the case that the terms "weakness" and "strength", as you have used them, make little sense when applied to distance running. A weightlifter is immeasurably stronger than Mo Farah but would have no chance against him. So what does it mean to say "strength" produces faster performances? All you have effectively done is use "stronger" and "weaker" as synonyms for "faster" and "slower". Of course we know a 4 minute mile is faster than a 4.10 mile but that tells us nothing about "strength" or "weakness", as the slower 4.10 runner may actually be stronger, literally, than the faster 4 minute runner.

You then go on to say that it is possible to "unambiguously measure the resulting performances to derive their degree of weakness or strength". Unambigously? That is a very bold statement - particularly when you say that you can do this "without identifying complex interactions or individual factors". How can you ascertain the degrees of weakness and strength involved (and "unambiguously") when you have chosen not to identify the role played by the other possible factors that might have affected performance? If we refer back to the example of the 4 minute miler and the 4.10 miler, what is the "unambiguous measure" that enables you to derive the degree of strength and weakness in those performances? Your assertions aside, all we can see is that one performance is 10 seconds faster than the other.

None of this tells us what was the capacity in either of those athletes to improve. Their respective performances tell us nothing about whether either has reached the limit of their capacity. We also derive nothing from their performances that would tell us what role doping might play in achieving those performances.

So your inquiry into whether doping "works" begins with the arbitrary and misleading labels of "strong" or "weak" performances, that then becomes the circular argument that strength and weakness cause performances to be strong or weak, from which we can then deduce the degrees of strength and weakness involved. Well - no we can't. All awaits proof - if it is capable of that. Certainly none of this is "self-evident".

If we put aside the inappropriate terminology and question-begging approach in your method, the empirical basis - such as it is - for your views comes down to what you describe as "real world" observations, such as performance data and a variety of studies, among other sources. Fair enough. We all do that, to a greater or lesser extent. From the information you choose to rely on, it is possible to have doubts about the effectiveness of EPO.

But you also choose to diminish or even discount as relevant to that question such information as relates to the high incidence of doping, its longstanding nature in the sport, the efforts of anti-doping to eliminate unfair advantage, as well as numerous anecdotal accounts from athletes coaches and others - all of which builds a picture that reinforces the conclusion that doping "works".

Having largely disregarded such information, you rely on a few studies that are cautious in making claims about elite performance and combine them with your measure of "strong" and "weak" historical performances to come to a conclusion "that EPO only works where there is weakness". And so the circular argument returns to its beginning. What is a "weak" performance other than a slower performance? (And slower than what? Mo Farah? Kiprop?) And then the assertion that assumes the point at issue, that certain performances ("strong" performances) are not the result of doping or cannot be improved by doping.

The essential problem with your arguments is that your premises and your conclusions are the same, and you define your premises, both verbally and factually, to enable those conclusions.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is quite obvious and not disputed that to achieve these improvements it requires that an athlete has a capacity to improve and that EPO can influence that capacity to help bring about those improvements. But that is the question - does EPO do this?

This is essentially my claim, and my question.

Once you understand that, the rest of your post is unnecessary and only serves to complicate what was in essence that simple. But I will address a few points.

Despite having only one syllable, it still seems necessary to narrow what "work" means, as to some, "EPO works" means raising blood values, or VO2max, or time-to-exhaustion, or it means working indirectly by increasing training capacity, or allowing an athlete to save energy for a last lap kick. Even with respect to running performance, do we mean the short term gains in studies measured in weeks or months, or the long term gains, which were never studied, measured in decades, that allow athletes to run their personal bests?

Don't be fooled by the simplicity of the terms "strength" (one syllable) and "weakness" (two syllables). You asked me to define the terms, and I have defined them with respect to the integration of all factors that control performance, and more specifically endurance running performance. After all that is the hopeful goal of EPO, to improve your potential performance capability, in order to realize a faster performance than is possible without, without regard to individual factors. In my claim, it is not necessary to name all the factors that were weak, just that a weakness exists, and EPO served to strengthen that weakness in a fashion that was not possible without. This renders "weakness and strength" as complex as performance itself, as it encompasses all factors that determine your potential performance capability, which would then hopefully enable a faster real performance.

By the same token, and definition, this is not the strength required for the performance of a weightlifter, unless we are talking about how fast he runs endurance events.

These terms are also relative to each individual, as one athlete taking EPO will presumably only work for that athlete, and not for other athletes.

You raise one fair point -- we can only unambiguously measure realized performances, and not potential performance capability.

Armstronglivs wrote:

come to a conclusion "that EPO only works where there is weakness".

This is also wrong in several ways:

1) This is not my conclusion, but a claim that helps set up further discussion about diminishing capacity to improve as you get "stronger".

2) It is also incomplete -- my claim had two parts that must be read together.

3) My conclusion, to the extent there was one, was that one question remains unanswered, and the the point where improvements from EPO become insignificant are unknown and debatable.

It's even worse than originally suspected.

There is no doubt that the use of EPO can increase both the values (volume and intensity) of the training of the athlete. I never denied this fact.

But, at the end of your post, it appears clearly that the reason of the improved performances depends on the training of the athlete.

The problem is that NEVER there was some research looking at the effects of training in some particular condition (high altitude), in order to discover the LIMIT of training that athletes can reach, in absolutely clean way.

This is what I continue to repeat : researchers can know how much doping can increase the transport of Oxygen in normal training, allowing the athlete to reach a personal higher level, compared with the level reached before, BUT DON'T KNOW THE LEVEL ATHLETES CAN REACH USING HARD AND ADVANCED TRAINING IN ALTITUDE, based on very high intensity (that the most part of athletes refuse to try in clean way, thinking not able to do and to recover) and very high MODULATION (that makes the parameter of "recovery" practically useless, because in training the final effect depends on the ability to increase the VOLUME OF THE INTENSITY, and this is possible using different types of recovery, depending on the individual characteristics.).

The fact that clean athletes can improve in very short time their performance, isn't due to doping (also if, in some case, can be the reason), but to the personal talent.

Few days ago there was the story of Henry Rono, who in less than two months, overweight and alcool addicted, moved his performance till a new WR, starting from a very far shape, and using a lot of competitions, meaning "specific stimuli" able to enhance his specific efficiency in a percentage that athletes without this type of talent never can reach.

You have to accept that the top athletes are at their level because some natural attitude that other athletes don't have.

When high talented athletes are able to combine their talent with a very advanced training (like the cases of Coe, Cram, Ovett in UK, not different from the case of Keino, Komen, Shaheen and Kipchoge in Kenya, Gebrselassie and Bekele in Ethiopia, Ryun in US, Elliot and Clarke in Australia, Snell, Halberg, Walker, Quax and Dixon in New Zealand, Viren and Vasala in Finland, and somebody else in other Country, with the same denominator of a superior talent), the parameters valid for everybody are no more effective, because these type of machines have something in their physiology makeing them different from the average athletes.

casual obsever wrote:

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

To the bolded, it's not any groundbreaking discovery that dopers with the increase in red cell mass and subsequent endurance capacity can train at a higher aerobic capacity. They'll train at faster speeds; more intense and longer intervals, faster & more intense TTs, more efficient recovery, etc. - again this isn't anything new or surprising. That's why so many of them dope - to train harder and recover better so as to get the edge over their competition....again nothing new, and this has been going on for decades with transfusions & EPO. And so many are in on the act: Distance runners, mid-d runners, marathoners, race walkers, etc.

^This.

EOT

Oh sure, that is certainly so "nothing new", "isn't anything new", "not any grounbreaking discovery" (I should also add also "common knowledge", "widely known", "described already in the old testament Genesis" and "discovered by the Middle East folks before algebra") that none of the dozens and dozens of cyclists who told about the PED use mentioned about it to CIRC or USADA.

Renato Canova wrote:

There is no doubt that the use of EPO can increase both the values (volume and intensity) of the training of the athlete. I never denied this fact.

But, at the end of your post, it appears clearly that the reason of the improved performances depends on the training of the athlete.

Chicken/ egg argument.

rekrunner wrote:

3) My conclusion, to the extent there was one, was that one question remains unanswered, and the the point where improvements from EPO become insignificant are unknown and debatable.

I know this is pointless, but I will just point out that this conclusion is really no conclusion at all. I mean maybe you could make a philosophical argument that it is a conclusion, but it is not one that advances either discussion or knowledge and is not really worthy of acknowledgement (which I just gave).

Carry on.

Kiptum in his DT hearing said he lives and has always lived in Nandi County, where the typical elevation is between 2,000 and 2,300m above sea level. He says he trains and often races at such altitudes. So, let's see how this "altitude native" benefited from doping - it's laughable:

99.99% specificity (1 in 10,000 chance of being undoped) for extremely high Hgb (20.3 or 60.9 Hct!!!) & astronomically high Off-score (148.30!), taken a few weeks before the *world record* at Valencia on Oct. 28, 2018, and high Hgb (18.9/56.7 Hct), low RET% (0.57) & another crazy Off-score (143.70) taken 3 days after Valencia.

That insane WR performance is followed up with a 2:04.16 at Abu Dhabi on Dec. 7, 2018 where he finished 2nd to Kipserem by a few seconds (the course was supposedly short by ~200m - so maybe around 2:05 or so?). Two (2) days after Abu Dhabi he has another sample at 99.99% specificity for high Hgb (18.7/56.1 Hct), low RET% (0.48) & another super high Off-score (145.50).

The expert panel ruled out the blood values being the result of altitude training, hypoxic training or changes in plasma due to training/detraining. It was deemed "supraphysiological hemoglobin mass" by doping (translation: doped to the gills. Lol).

Kiptum was only running 61's & 2:16's in 2016 then exploded with a 2:05 marathon & HM WR! And add to this the other Kenyans "living & training at altitude" that have been busted & banned for ABP hematological-anomalies such as Rutto, Cepchirchir, Chepkirui (pending a DT) & now 2:05 speedster Wanjiru, and it sounds like they're combining blood doping with their training at altitude and getting a big bang for their buck. Lol.

You can't take these Kenyan performances serious anymore (including Jeptoo's Boston CR) - if they could have done it clean they wouldn't have doped in the first place!

Sorry but this is all been said before.

Canova says the hematological experts don't know what level these athletes could have achieved by "hard and advanced" training in altitude alone.

These hematological experts are good at looking at blood values. It's like asking the bio-diesel inventors how to build a Lamborghini because they can detect additives in the fuel.

Not saying EPO doesn't help, I don't want to go there, but rekrunner says (let's avoid the "b" word) even fast athletes want to do everything to become faster. That's why they dope, because they don't have enough confidence in their own ability and training. It may help, but probably not as much as 2 minutes in the semi-marathon and 11 minutes in the marathon.

The semi-marathon times are probably not as strong as the marathon because they are run less frequently -- often as a warmup to the marathon. The new semi-marathon WR holder took second and ran 2:05, minutes slower than the marathon record.