A very simple question

cheesewiz wrote:

I think you guys are missing something really big here...I don’t have a statistic for this but I’m willing to bet athletes that dope using EPO are also using multiple other PEDS. If we are talking about athletes at altitude, taking other PEDS would elicit performance benefits, but EPO is what they’re “caught” for so to speak because it’s easier to test for than other drugs maybe? It would also act as a placebo. If someone took EPO even at altitude where it has little/no effect but they think it helps, maybe along with the other drugs there is some benefit.

I dunno, just theorizing. I think that if someone would be willing to take EPO that they would probably be willing to take other drugs too

No...we haven't missed anything - we've been talking about that here for years. It's pretty well understood that dopers use multiple PEDs. A common stack with endurance athletes is EPO and androgens and/or HGH. We know that from the substances confiscated at all these Spanish doping rings broken up going back to 2006 (Puerto, Galgo, Skype, etc).

Some of the substances found were EPO, testosterone, steroids, HGH and sometimes even blood transfusion equipment (found at both Puerto & Skype). At Aden's altitude camp at Sabadell, EPO & steroids were confiscated. There's been some cases where an athlete tests positive for EPO, serves a ban and upon returning back to competition tests positive for steroids (or vice versa).

There was a case reported in The Guardian a few years ago about an undercover investigation on doping in Ethiopia where an unnamed "high-profile" female runner was using an EPO - HGH stack for a 45 day pre-comp cycle. She was told by her coach what time frame to stop and avoid glowing IC (if she's not tested OOC, she has a very little chance of getting caught). There was even a recent case where an Ethiopian marathoner got a double-whammy by testing positive IC for both EPO & testosterone!

The EPO would obviously be used to improve aerobic capacity while androgen & GH use would be for strength, improved recovery, prevention of injuries, etc. There's also some evidence that T & steroids can raise hematocrit levels but it's more pronounced with older athletes. Here's a video on this by Matt Mosman (a little simplistic but a good basic intro nonetheless):

You make an important observation, that dopers are typically using a cocktail of drugs, thus increasing the possible benefits.

Calling it cheating just reinforces the belief in the supposed Performance Enhancing efficacy of the product. So you Just make the problem worse. None of you have any clue about how the human body actually works because you have been force fed pseudoscience your lives. I repeat there is no such thing as a superhuman ATP output. It is a biological impossibility. Show me you really care by engaging in a real debate about your own ethical position.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The double-standard here is standard of proof.

"Proof by example" is not an argument, but a fallacy.

I provided examples with experiences, not proof; you on the other hand only have faith, or rather, hope, without experiences.

The conversation you joined was about the double standard of rejecting personal experience because of a lack of specific research, then presenting counter-arguments also lacking research.

Your providing examples without proof serves as further illustration of my point.

I often see Renato express his ideas like "I continue to think ... based on my experience, without proof.

So -- not really presented "as fact", but as an idea he continues to think and argue based on his personal experiences.

If you want to say "EPO may aid", I agree you don't need proof because you are not really making any claim.

I never dismiss evidence.

I don't rely *only* on academic research -- I remind you that you set that high standard, when dismissing Renato's thoughts and experiences.

It is pretty clear she cheated and transgressed the rules, but a 12 year ban? 12 years that’s a long time for athletes! That really seems to be over the top.

Not endorsing what she did, but a 12 year ban compared to other people seems extremely excessive.

And does she have the right to appeal in a higher court?

Seems like a crazy decision. Remember these people (the athletes) are not real criminals but rather they are trying to put food on the table for their families. Once again, I’m not endorsing what she did, but we need to get some perspective on this.

12 years, unbelievable. I don’t think that a doping ban has ever been this severe up to this date. Her life is damaged beyond repair if the ban takes place without appeal.

Well, now that we've established you deal only in absolutes and not in probabilities you confirm you have nothing meaningful to say on the subject of doping in sport.

I see you also misrepresent what I say; I did not claim you "only" depend on academic research, I said you place a "disproportionate reliance" on it - which is not the same thing. When you get something like that wrong, I am not surprised you are easily confused by the issues pertaining to doping.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Well, now that we've established you deal only in absolutes and not in probabilities you confirm you have nothing meaningful to say on the subject of doping in sport.

Well, after you and others have suggested that EPO may aid, that pretty much says it all. What more can be said?

Armstronglivs wrote:

I see you also misrepresent what I say; I did not claim you "only" depend on academic research, I said you place a "disproportionate reliance" on it - which is not the same thing. When you get something like that wrong, I am not surprised you are easily confused by the issues pertaining to doping.

Now that I read this more closely, this seems like a rather odd conclusion, as many of my posts point out what is wrong with all of the academic research (e.g. estimates from Malm and Schumacher; lack of controls from Pitsiladis; etc.) that purports to show things like "EPO may aid". I do recall discussing two meta-studies with you which both argued that EPO's effect has been over-estimated in academic research.

And I remind you yet once again, it was you who expressed scepticism of Renato's thoughts as they are not suppored by academic research.

Soon there will be a comeback of a Kenyan runner that will overturn Renato'.s chatter about what

proper training at high altitude really is about.

We are going around the mulberry bush. Claims about doping have typically to be based on probabilities, because drugs will have different effects on different athletes. Short of a confirmed doping violation we also cannot be completely sure which individual athletes are doping. We may draw inferences from a variety of evidential sources, but it leaves us much where we began, with the understanding that doping is pervasive in many sports but that we can't be absolutely sure which individuals are doped.

As I pointed out previously, to claim that a given drug will not aid altitude-trained athletes, is a very specific claim - rather akin to "X athlete is doped/clean" - and can only be proven by unequivocal and irrefutable evidence, which in this case is employing the drug in question on altitude-trained athletes. Without such evidence the claim remains conjecture, unsupported by circumstantial evidence, and confuted also by the established fact that altitude-trained athletes have used the drug and continue to do so.

I left out the necessary further point in this discussion, that it is inferential evidence, from a wide variety of sources, that enables us to conclude that doping contributes to performance improvements. However, this "finding" cannot be exact, because no two athletes will respond exactly the same way to the same drug and we often won't know which drugs have been used in combination. So, in summary, to gain a picture of what is happening in doping we are observing the movement of a herd, so to speak, rather than the individuals in it. Hence, we are typically left with estimates rather than firm conclusions.

Armstronglivs wrote:

We are going around the mulberry bush.

Well actually it is you, and a few others, going around the same mulberry bush, as I observe this running in circles from the outside and point out the double standard.

One way to cure the double standard is to apply your standard to Renato's thinking.

Renato, and others, have suggested that altitude training "may aid" performance.

This thinking about high altitude training can be inferred from the fact that so many athletes have been caught altitude training, including medal winners, Olympic champions, world record holders. I can provide many examples.

Altitude training is undeniably pervasive in this sport.

This is strengthened when combined with research plus anecdotal accounts that altitude training increases endurance.

Altitude training has been so established over the years that only someone who has been asleep can't see it.

If it helps -- this is not absolute, but can be viewed as an argument of probability, which can be supported by a variety of evidence.

Because high altitude training stimulates EPO and RBC production naturally -- EPO may aid performance of clean high altitude trained athletes.

Your dismissal of the evidence that relates to the high altitude environment shows a disregard for what happens in the real world.

You are misrepresenting Renato's claim and my comments about it. He is not saying that altitude-training aids performance - that is a truism that no one, including myself, disputes as it has long been proven - but rather he is claiming that altitude-training can beat doping by the best distance runners, who are also altitude-trained. There is no actual evidence for that claim. No research has been conducted in doping the best altitude-trained athletes to draw comparisons between their doped and clean performances. These athletes may already be doping and we wouldn't know it - until they are caught. As some are. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that doping aids performance. Essentially, it is harder to prove that it doesn't aid the best athletes than that it does, as there is a considerable body of evidence of its effects on athletes, but virtually none that shows doping can be discounted as a performance enhancer.

When you speak about what I say, you say :

" He is claiming that altitude-training can beat doping by the best distance runners, who are also altitude-trained. There is no actual evidence for that claim. No research has been conducted in doping the best altitude-trained athletes to draw comparisons between their doped and clean performances."

This is true : no researches have been conducted to compare doped and clean performances in top altitude-trained athletes.

" These athletes may already be doping and we wouldn't know it - until they are caught. As some are.".

This is also true : these athletes may already be doped and we know it only when they are caught.

Your problem, and of many other here and in the World, is that, when 97 athletes in top 100 all-time in the marathon, for example, NEVER were caught, you don't consider the following option:

The top athletes may achieve their results in clean way and with training only, but it seems that nobody can consider this possible, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY NEVER WERE CAUGHT DOPED.

This means that doped are doped, and clean don't exist, so they need to be doped.

And all this because there is no idea about the real value of the performances, and the road athletes have to follow for achieving them.

So, if it's true that there are no proves that taking EPO can't help athletes training with proper training (volume and intensity) in altitude, it's also true that there are no proves that for reaching top performances athletes have to dope : this for me, working in this field in clean way, is a FACT, for you may be not a fact, but at least has to be one POSSIBILITY, something instead that you and who overrates the effects of EPO on the performance don't take into account.

And, if some of the top performances (and several WR) belong to clean athletes, maybe the effect of doping is not so important, when the percentage of athletes caught for EPO is very small in all the events of middle and long distances, if we go to analyze the top 100 all-time, compared with the top 100 in throwing, jumping and sprinting (and don't speak again in general way about "doping" : I SPECIFICALLY SPEAK OF EPO.

On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that doping aids performance. Essentially, it is harder to prove that it doesn't aid the best athletes than that it does, as there is a considerable body of evidence of its effects on athletes, but virtually none that shows doping can be discounted as a performance enhancer.

The last phrase is what you say : now I ask you :

If some athlete is able to beat a WR with training only, or to improve dramatically his PB with training only, or to win a Gold Medal with training only, and in the same event there is somebody SLOWER than him/her who takes EPO, can this fact be a demonstration that EPO works (without any connection with the training methodology), or is only a FACT (these athletes took EPO) whose effect has to be investigated ?

Which is the starting point of an athlete caught for doping ? When he/she started the assumption ? Which results he/she had BEFORE starting doping ?

These are all situations not clear, if the athlete himself doesn't give precise infos.

And, how is not possible to compare athletes training in altitude without EPO, and with EPO, if there is not a research with the same athletes, looking at their performances clean, and their performances doped, for understanding if, and how much, improvement there is, is not possible to compare the performances of a doped athlete BEFORE and AFTER doping, if we don't know, but only SUPPOSE, his starting point.

Renato, I accept that it is possible that some athletes may be talented enough (and trained well enough) to get to the top without doping. However, from the present state of the sport, in which the incidence of doping is officially estimated to be around 1 in 3 championship level athletes, I remain sceptical. If such clean athletes exist in the winners circle I suspect they are now the exception. However, I take your view, based on your considerable experience in training elite athletes, that clean champions remain a possibility. Ultimately, we are both forming a perception about what is possible or likely - based on a variety of evidential factors - and not what is certain. I concede to your considerable knowledge and experience as a coach of top athletes; my views are drawn more from those who have expertise in anti-doping.

As you acknowledge, what I specifically question is a claim that EPO - or any other form of doping - won't aid the best altitude-trained athletes. As you have also noted, we don't yet have the necessary research data to prove such a claim. We may never have it. There is however quite a lot of evidence showing the performance enhancing qualities of EPO and other forms of doping.

I don't know what proportion of the fastest marathon runners will be doped - but I rather fear the best are. We are seeing this with some of those who are now being caught for doping violations. Many of them were championship winners and record holders. I see too many reasons for why athletes would choose to dope; their careers - their lives, as they see it - may well depend on it.

Keeping in the spirit of avoiding double standard:

- there is no research that says EPO won't help after a lengthy aerobic training at high altitude

- equally there is no research that says EPO will help after a lengthy aerobic training at high altitude

- Athletes may be doping, and we wouldn't know it, until they are caught.

- Athletes may also be clean, and we wouldn't know it, when they are not caught.

- Even when they are caught, we wouldn't know whether earlier performances were clean.

- There is considerable evidence that doping aids performance.

- There is considerable evidence that altitude training aids performance.

Using your relaxed standard of inference, and existence, without real controlled measurements, it is not possible to distinguish between or compare the two scenarios. Studies on untrained/amateur sea-level athletes.

(sorry pressed send to soon)

Studies on untrained/amateur sea-level athletes don't help.