Hicham El Guerrouj is oficially clean!!! His frozen urine samples can't be retested anymore!!!

all those spaniards were doped for barcelona and beyond

i don't think renato is the best person to speak about doping

coaching yes...i don't know why he involves himself in the doping debates

his opinion is out of whack with the reality

I didn't know that about the coach of Cacho. Interesting.

I always considered Cacho a good 3:32 standard runner from when he won in Barcelona. The 3:28.9 in 97 was a bit of an eye opener. THis was the height of the EPO era after all.

So what was decided? Was there ever any single moment in history that El G was not officially clean?

a second a lap gain from 1500 up seems about right to me

332 becomes 328

1250 becomes 1238

27 becomes 2630

that's the way I see it in those days

it seems to be a recognisable pattern

vo2 cycling wrote:

a second a lap gain from 1500 up seems about right to me

332 becomes 328

1250 becomes 1238

27 becomes 2630

that's the way I see it in those days

it seems to be a recognisable pattern

The depth of times have not changed at all since your "EPO era." Geb and El G were as amazing then as they would be now.

If you really believe what you say, then only 3 runners in the era could break "3:32," and Kiprop would have run "3:23." What a joke.

Drugs don't work, do they?

This fella doesn't know what he's talking about, does he?

http://www.totalflexblog.com/articles/steroids-athletic-performance-and-red-blood-cells-part-1-of-2/#1

rekrunner wrote:

So what was decided? Was there ever any single moment in history that El G was not officially clean?

He was clean, but his last testing probably was in 2005.

2005+8 (statue of limitations)=2013.

And last year the Athens samples were retested and he wasn't positive.

Drugs don't work, do they? wrote:

Drugs don't work, do they?

This fella doesn't know what he's talking about, does he?

http://www.totalflexblog.com/articles/steroids-athletic-performance-and-red-blood-cells-part-1-of-2/#1

Interesting graph. So 13:15 appears to be the limit of clean athletes?

Ben L Wrong wrote:

He was clean, but his last testing probably was in 2005.

2005+8 (statue of limitations)=2013.

And last year the Athens samples were retested and he wasn't positive.

Not all samples were re-tested.

The IOC didn't even both to retest the samples until some journalists had to remind them that the statute of limitations was almost up.

Shows you how willing the IOC is to make a bust. Bad for business.

fire the IOC wrote:

Not all samples were re-tested.

The IOC didn't even both to retest the samples until some journalists had to remind them that the statute of limitations was almost up.

Shows you how willing the IOC is to make a bust.

Non-sequitur

I don't want to go again to speak about how ridiculous is an article speaking about the effects of some drug on normal people, referred to top athletes.

Because, to these "scientists", I can ask : what do you know about the EFFECTS OF TRAINING ON THE CHANGE OF BLOOD VALUES ?

Of course, it's very easy to study how a NORMAL performance can change for a NORMAL person, taking EPO. So, the trend is : I have low values, I take EPO, my values grow because I have more RBC, I can transport more O2, so I can run faster.

No problem to accept this. I actually can run 1 km in 5', and of sure if I take EPO I can run 4'40".

But the real question is :

I have an athlete, not trained, able running, for example, 10 km in 34'. He goes to train well for 6 months, and after this he's able running in 32'.

My simple question is : WHY ?

So,somebody of ALL this chemical scientists can explain me the effects of training ?

And do you think that, with a NORMAL athlete with a NORMAL training, the effect of taking EPO can be the same as a NORMAL person without any training ?

So, we can say that :

a) Person with kidney desease. Taking EPO, they can increase the ability to transport O2 of 30%.

b) Not trained person : they try running 10 km, and run 50'. With NO TRAINING, but taking EPO, they run 45' (increase of 10%).

c) Trained athletes of NORMAL LEVEL. They, already with medium basic training, are able to run 33'. Taking EPO, can run 31' (increase of about 6%)

d) Athlete of MEDIUM INTERNATIONAL LEVEL (a lot of people give the example of Lombard). They can run 28'30", taking EPO run 27'30" (increase of about 3,5 %)

e) Athlete of HIGH INTERNATIONAL LEVEL (able running 27'30" clean, living in altitude) : taking EPO can run 27'10" (increase of about 1,2%)

f) Athletes TOP CHAMPIONS (able running COMPLETELY CLEAN, like I had Nicholas Kemboi, for example) : taking EPO, I'm not surprised if they run SLOWER than what they can run when clean.

I repeat a lot of times : TILL WHEN THERE IS NOT A SPECIFIC RESEARCH WITH REALLY TOP ATHLETES ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE WE CAN HAVE WITH OR WITHOUT EPO, EVERY IDEA IS ONLY SOME PERSONAL OPINION, BUT THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC BASIS FOR THINKING NOT POSSIBLE RUNNING FAST WITHOUT DRUG.

I had athletes running fast without anything : WR in steeple, a lot of athletes under 27' in 10000m with one at 26'30" with only 2 months of proper preparation. So, I know what is possible to run with proper training and great talent.

Of course may be EPO could work for these athletes, too.

But in this case, the WR of 5000m should be already under 12'30", and in 10000 under 25'50", because THE BEST KENYAN AND ETHIOPIAN IN LONG DISTANCES ARE ALL CLEAN, are the weakest trying to fill the gap with some doping, and normally they nothing can do also in this way.

So, officially speaking, El G has always been clean his whole career. There is really nothing special about 2013.

Ben L Wrong wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

So what was decided? Was there ever any single moment in history that El G was not officially clean?

He was clean, but his last testing probably was in 2005.

2005+8 (statue of limitations)=2013.

And last year the Athens samples were retested and he wasn't positive.

What's most interesting to me is the expressive strength of the claim: "The widespread use of EPO in professional athletics is believed to be responsible for a sharp drop in running times in long distance events, as illustrated by the graph below."Note the artistic use of the "passive voice" to express a belief of some anonymous person or group.Here is a deeper explanation of why the use of the "passive voice" can be so effective for such strong claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_wordsparticularly for "creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated."

Hardloper wrote:

Drugs don't work, do they? wrote:

Drugs don't work, do they?

This fella doesn't know what he's talking about, does he?

http://www.totalflexblog.com/articles/steroids-athletic-performance-and-red-blood-cells-part-1-of-2/#1

Interesting graph. So 13:15 appears to be the limit of clean athletes?

But even for Nicolas Kemboi. If he increased his VO2 max to 150 (as for a trained dog). He would run much faster than 26.30. VO2 max is always a limiting factor in long distances (not necessarily always the main limiting factor, but a major one).EPO increases hemoglobin, which increases VO2max unless you already had hematocrit values over 60% in the beginning (before using EPO).Therefore, basic scientific theory predicts that the best elite athletes (including Kemboi (if not already doped)) would improve their VO2max by use of EPO, and provided they keep running economy and muscular metabolism the same as before, they would run faster.Scientific theories have been proved wrong before. And it would be very interesting to physiologists if Canova or others could prove that top elite athletes does not benefit from EPO.But until then, I strongly suppose that also these athletes would benefit from EPO.Just like I strongly suppose that Renato Canova will be subject to the laws of gravity if dropped from a tall building.

How was his urine clean? Every time I drink mine it always tastes dirty and salty. I guess he just has a gift, but I would need to taste it to make sure. Are they going to start mass producing Popsicles for the general public? I would be interested in buying some stock. This has a nice ring to it "Guerrouj Pops" bring the fire back in your life by ingesting this athletes once frozen duplicated piss.

rekrunner wrote:

So, officially speaking, El G has always been clean his whole career. There is really nothing special about 2013.

2013 was the last chsnce to prove the opposite.

Why not come with an argument against the claims of the article, pinpointing the errors (if such exists), rather that obsessing about rethorics.

rekrunner wrote:

What's most interesting to me is the expressive strength of the claim: "The widespread use of EPO in professional athletics is believed to be responsible for a sharp drop in running times in long distance events, as illustrated by the graph below."

Note the artistic use of the "passive voice" to express a belief of some anonymous person or group.

Here is a deeper explanation of why the use of the "passive voice" can be so effective for such strong claims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words

particularly for "creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated."

Hardloper wrote:

Interesting graph. So 13:15 appears to be the limit of clean athletes?

Hardloper wrote:

Non-sequitur

nope

rekrunner wrote:

What's most interesting to me is the expressive strength of the claim: "The widespread use of EPO in professional athletics is believed to be responsible for a sharp drop in running times in long distance events, as illustrated by the graph below."

Note the artistic use of the "passive voice" to express a belief of some anonymous person or group.

Here is a deeper explanation of why the use of the "passive voice" can be so effective for such strong claims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words

particularly for "creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated."

But it IS believed by anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand.

Which seems to not include many people in this thread.