ABP is useless for convictions of high profile athletes who have good enough lawyers. Ever since Roman Kreuziger got his ABP violation overturned, it just takes a good enough lawyer to get it thrown out. It's just used to flag athletes to test more often. But with micro-dosing and no overnight testing there's very little chance of getting caught for EPO unless you get careless. Cycling implemented a 50% hematocrit ceiling, but they've made exceptions for cyclists who could prove they were naturally high e.g. Sergio Henao.
Would be nice if all medal winners' samples would be retested after 8 - 9 years, not just those deemed especially suspicious by WA/AIU.
What seems crazy to me is a lot of people on here say El Guerrouj retired on purpose just when they started testing for EPO, but even when they retested all his samples 10 years later they never found anything. It is especially strange considering he probably wouldn’t have been very cautious and moderate in his use if the tests didn’t exist at his time.
I'm not sure they were retested. Are you?
I can't remember when it was but I thought there was a year when they threw out a bunch of samples. I remember thinking, "They don't want to know." Again, I can't remember what Olympics it was for but I imagine it was 2012 (as the one person whose sample I"d want tested after the facte would be EL G's) but they didn't test all the samples they had stored. And it seemed suspect AF to me. So what I'm saying is I don't think we have any idea that they did re-test EL G's from 2004 in 2012. The only article I can find says they re-tested 100 samples that year. That's not very many.
Does anyone remember what I'm talking about? Instead of testing everything, they were like "We're good."
What seems crazy to me is a lot of people on here say El Guerrouj retired on purpose just when they started testing for EPO, but even when they retested all his samples 10 years later they never found anything. It is especially strange considering he probably wouldn’t have been very cautious and moderate in his use if the tests didn’t exist at his time.
Does the short half life of EPO prevent it from being detected in 10yo urine samples?
What seems crazy to me is a lot of people on here say El Guerrouj retired on purpose just when they started testing for EPO, but even when they retested all his samples 10 years later they never found anything. It is especially strange considering he probably wouldn’t have been very cautious and moderate in his use if the tests didn’t exist at his time.
Does the short half life of EPO prevent it from being detected in 10yo urine samples?
We're referring to biological half life - there are no biological processes in play. And the samples are stored in freezer/coolers.
You're not going to get an intelligent answer from letsrun posters.
What you are supposed to believe is that more red blood cells = more oxygen delivery.
In other words a supernatural aerobic metabolism. But there is no such thing because that's not how metabolism works.
So you're asking people who have no understanding of basic biology and don't care to learn anyway. This includes most so called 'exercise physiologists'.
Institutionalised ignorance is here to stay.
And yet, EPO doping obviously improves athletic performance, as Lance himself admitted.
Lance doesn't know anything about physiology.
Have a think about it. You're supposed to believe that a healthy athlete can have a supernatural aerobic metabolism if they have 20% more red blood cells.
I challenge you to give that some real thought. Can you do it?
And yet, EPO doping obviously improves athletic performance, as Lance himself admitted.
Lance doesn't know anything about physiology.
Have a think about it. You're supposed to believe that a healthy athlete can have a supernatural aerobic metabolism if they have 20% more red blood cells.
I challenge you to give that some real thought. Can you do it?
No, I can't.
That's why I'm asking.
But I believe I can state that EPO does improve athletic performance.
Have a think about it. You're supposed to believe that a healthy athlete can have a supernatural aerobic metabolism if they have 20% more red blood cells.
I challenge you to give that some real thought. Can you do it?
No, I can't.
That's why I'm asking.
But I believe I can state that EPO does improve athletic performance.
That statement doesn't require that the improvement be definitively quantified. It will vary from athlete to athlete - as with other forms of doping. No doped athlete will supply the data that will demonstrate the gains they made. However it can be concluded that if a drug that has existed for over 30 years did not provide significant gains its use would have long ago discontinued - especially in the light of the penalties that can be incurred if caught using it. It would be seen as no more performance enhancing than drinking hot chocolate or wearing a lucky charm - and as innocuous.
This post was edited 37 seconds after it was posted.
That statement doesn't require that the improvement be definitively quantified. It will vary from athlete to athlete - as with other forms of doping. No doped athlete will supply the data that will demonstrate the gains they made. However it can be concluded that if a drug that has existed for over 30 years did not provide significant gains its use would have long ago discontinued - especially in the light of the penalties that can be incurred if caught using it. It would be seen as no more performance enhancing than drinking hot chocolate or wearing a lucky charm - and as innocuous.
I can't remember when it was but I thought there was a year when they threw out a bunch of samples. I remember thinking, "They don't want to know." Again, I can't remember what Olympics it was for but I imagine it was 2012 (as the one person whose sample I"d want tested after the facte would be EL G's) but they didn't test all the samples they had stored. And it seemed suspect AF to me. So what I'm saying is I don't think we have any idea that they did re-test EL G's from 2004 in 2012. The only article I can find says they re-tested 100 samples that year. That's not very many.
Does anyone remember what I'm talking about? Instead of testing everything, they were like "We're good."
Yes. This is a big part of the problem here: lack of transparency, and lack of consistent testing of medal winners 8 - 9 years after the win with advanced methods. As is, the powers that be pick/picked - for whatever reason they want - whom to test, e.g. not El G/Bekele/Bolt/Farah. Sad but true.
But I believe I can state that EPO does improve athletic performance.
That statement doesn't require that the improvement be definitively quantified. It will vary from athlete to athlete - as with other forms of doping. No doped athlete will supply the data that will demonstrate the gains they made. However it can be concluded that if a drug that has existed for over 30 years did not provide significant gains its use would have long ago discontinued - especially in the light of the penalties that can be incurred if caught using it. It would be seen as no more performance enhancing than drinking hot chocolate or wearing a lucky charm - and as innocuous.
You don't understand what metabolism is, that's why you think the way you do.
Have a think about it. You're supposed to believe that a healthy athlete can have a supernatural aerobic metabolism if they have 20% more red blood cells.
I challenge you to give that some real thought. Can you do it?
No, I can't.
That's why I'm asking.
But I believe I can state that EPO does improve athletic performance.
You believe that there is a supernatural aerobic metabolism. There isn't. That's not how metabolism works. It's limited by genetics and thermodynamics. This is basic biology. Unfortunately that subject isn't properly taught in schools.
That statement doesn't require that the improvement be definitively quantified. It will vary from athlete to athlete - as with other forms of doping. No doped athlete will supply the data that will demonstrate the gains they made. However it can be concluded that if a drug that has existed for over 30 years did not provide significant gains its use would have long ago discontinued - especially in the light of the penalties that can be incurred if caught using it. It would be seen as no more performance enhancing than drinking hot chocolate or wearing a lucky charm - and as innocuous.
You don't understand what metabolism is, that's why you think the way you do.
You're saying athletes don't understand it because it is they who are using it. But they are getting results from it and have done so for decades which leads to the conclusion that it is you who doesn't understand.
But I believe I can state that EPO does improve athletic performance.
You believe that there is a supernatural aerobic metabolism. There isn't. That's not how metabolism works. It's limited by genetics and thermodynamics. This is basic biology. Unfortunately that subject isn't properly taught in schools.
Mumbo jumbo. Athletes dope because it works for them. They wouldn't otherwise. You have no idea about any of this.
Athletes dope because it works for them. They wouldn't otherwise.
Each athlete decides to use any given substance / method when the ex ante benefit is more than the ex ante negative outcome (monetary cost, health issues, getting popped). This is decision making calculus 101.
Many would dope if there would be only a 20 % chance of getting a 1 % boost and a 80 % chance of getting no boost at all if the predicted negative downside was only modest.
The more prevalent some substances and methods are, the more likely it is that the odds for a positive outcome are better. But the decision making process isn't that "athtletes dope because it works for them".
Sorry for the bump, but I really want to understand the matter.
Thks
You're not going to get an intelligent answer from letsrun posters.
What you are supposed to believe is that more red blood cells = more oxygen delivery.
In other words a supernatural aerobic metabolism. But there is no such thing because that's not how metabolism works.
So you're asking people who have no understanding of basic biology and don't care to learn anyway. This includes most so called 'exercise physiologists'.
Institutionalised ignorance is here to stay.
let me know when you've actually tried the substance in question
But I believe I can state that EPO does improve athletic performance.
That statement doesn't require that the improvement be definitively quantified. It will vary from athlete to athlete - as with other forms of doping. No doped athlete will supply the data that will demonstrate the gains they made. However it can be concluded that if a drug that has existed for over 30 years did not provide significant gains its use would have long ago discontinued - especially in the light of the penalties that can be incurred if caught using it. It would be seen as no more performance enhancing than drinking hot chocolate or wearing a lucky charm - and as innocuous.
i used it during an approximate 8 week period during 2007
Athletes dope because it works for them. They wouldn't otherwise.
Each athlete decides to use any given substance / method when the ex ante benefit is more than the ex ante negative outcome (monetary cost, health issues, getting popped). This is decision making calculus 101.
Many would dope if there would be only a 20 % chance of getting a 1 % boost and a 80 % chance of getting no boost at all if the predicted negative downside was only modest.
The more prevalent some substances and methods are, the more likely it is that the odds for a positive outcome are better. But the decision making process isn't that "athtletes dope because it works for them".
You have simply said the same thing that I have but in greater detail. Doping has long been a practice engaged in by generations of athletes. It would not persist and indeed increase as the feature it is in sports if, on balance, it was either negative or merely neutral in its effects. Athletes calculate, as you have indicated, that the benefits will outweigh the costs. They are generally right or it would have not have become the commonplace that it has.
I would add that doping is not simply a punt now; it is the result of very expert involvement in the creation and identification of substances that will aid performances, and how to administer them without adverse health consequences or risk of being caught.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.