"In an interview with BBC in July this year, WADA Director General David Howman claimed that more than 10 % of elite athletes were doping. The greatest area of concern, he noted, was the level of up and coming athletes trying to get what he called a ‘breakthrough’, which made them more susceptible to substance abuse."
The implication here is that the more-regularly tested elites aren't those one doping but the less tested sub-elite randos, who are barely (if at all) tested OOC and of whom there is necessarily even any datapoints in their ABP-profile.
The following came from a study of the effects of doping on elite Kenyan athletes. The findings show that doping significantly enhances performance even for athletes trained at altitude. I will post the link.
"In conclusion, this is the first study to demonstrate that 4 wk of rHuEpo administration significantly increased the already relatively high basal HGB and HCT values of Kenyan endurance runners living and training at moderate altitude by ~10%. Although the rHuEpo-induced increase in key hematological parameters in these altitude-adapted Kenyan endurance runners was blunted compared with white athletes living and training at or near sea level, the relative improvements of ~5% and ~3% in running performance immediately after the rHuEpo administration and 4 wk after the last injection, respectively, were similar in both groups. This finding is also in line with the overwhelming scientific literature. Although caution is required when extrapolating findings from subelite to truly elite athletes, the significant improvements in running performance we report would almost certainly translate into a worthwhile enhancement in elite performance."
Don't bother, I already know the source material in great detail.
I read the original Glasgow - study from ~2014 (focusing on the sea level cohort). I also read the ~200 page thesis by Jerome Durussel available roughly since then on the same data but also including the Kenyan cohort. I also read in detail the 2019 paper by Haile et al. based also on the same material.
It still remains true that Howman doesn't imply at all that the worst dopers are the elites.
My observation concerned his estimated prevalence of elite doping. It wasn't that he claimed elites dope more than anyone else. However, I have heard him say that doping at the elite and championship level may be higher than we think - and this is reinforced by surveys and the observations of others involved in antidoping and research in this area. Howman is not an alarmist or one who seeks controversy. He won't make claims beyond what he can be sure of - so his estimates tend towards the conservative. However, studies, such as one I previously linked to, more or less state that athletes who aspire to national or international success feel bound to dope or they have no chance.
I would add, in respect of your last observation, that the reason elites may not be the most numerous dopers is that by definition they are far fewer than recreational athletes.
That is the only study addressing the effect of any type of blood doping on native high-altitude residents, therefore I presume you have read it in a great detail (or are aware of its content).
Did you find any limitations in the protocol or any weird phenomena in the data that caught your attention or is the study so good that it ends the discussion about how much EPO benefits Kenyans?
The Howman - quote is indeed ambiguous, but his main concern seems to be the barely tested athletes, who want to be amongst the elite of the elites.
" the relative improvements of ~5% and ~3% in running performance immediately after the rHuEpo administration and 4 wk after the last injection, respectively, were similar in both groups. This finding is also in line with the overwhelming scientific literature. "
That's not a bad improvement for just 4 weeks of unoptimized doping using just EPO...
In any case, btt: the AIU posted a few remarks (FAQ) about the "DOPING CRISIS IN KENYAN ATHLETICS".
Among other things they say about Kenyan athletes and doping:
The temptation to dope is very high to stay ahead of rival competitors.
Kenyan doping is not centralised; however, it is becoming increasingly more sophisticated. Because of the financial incentives to dope, there is a free market demand for doping products and methods and many persons are willing to supply the athletes. These transactions range from the very basic supply of products to more sophisticated networks of conspirators coming together to use methodologies to avoid detection.
While that isn't state-sponsored it is nonetheless systemic. It fits with Howman's express view that doping remains more sophisticated than antidoping.
That is the only study addressing the effect of any type of blood doping on native high-altitude residents, therefore I presume you have read it in a great detail (or are aware of its content).
Did you find any limitations in the protocol or any weird phenomena in the data that caught your attention or is the study so good that it ends the discussion about how much EPO benefits Kenyans?
The Howman - quote is indeed ambiguous, but his main concern seems to be the barely tested athletes, who want to be amongst the elite of the elites.
I read the study but I don't have the expertise to critique its methodology. I would depend on other experts to do that for me. I wouldn't say that it "ends the discussion about how much EPO benefits Kenyans". However, the crucial point I take from it is that EPO benefits even athletes who live and train altitude (which is no doubt why they dope) and which has been repeatedly contested here.
I have had the advantage of speaking with Howman informally. His views off the record are much stronger than what he feels he can say publicly. I think he does take the view that if testing were administered as it could be many more of the dopers would be caught. He thinks the technology is there. However many countries and their sports governance bodies are loathe to crack down on doping. I am inclined to the view that the flood of doping busts in Kenya is an example of much more strenuous and targeted testing. It seems to be working there.
I read the study but I don't have the expertise to critique its methodology. I would depend on other experts to do that for me. I wouldn't say that it "ends the discussion about how much EPO benefits Kenyans". However, the crucial point I take from it is that EPO benefits even athletes who live and train altitude (which is no doubt why they dope) and which has been repeatedly contested here.
But can you find many of those "other experts"? Alex Hutchinson did make a reference to this study, but otherwise next-to-no experts commented this breakthrough study that should've been of great importance (a few random media outlets did). It is of interest just why. Or can you find e.g. Don Catlin saying that “They did a great job. Their paper will stand as a model for future research studies"? Catlin actually said that about the 2017 Dutch paper where there was no boost in cycling performance after EPO administration. (other scientists did poke holes into the paper, which was clumsy)
The Soviet scientists conducted similar type of studies using transfusions to measure improvement in running speed from ~1973 onwards. But even the clunkiest academic blood doping research papers from the 1980s didn't just give extra blood to athletes and look how they performed as the authors of the Kenyan paper did.
Looking through I see somebody called rec runner saying stuff like EPO doesn't work and that Kenyans have aerodynamic craniums?!! And people are earnestly debating him?? Is this a LetsRun injoke or something?
Careful -- Coevett lies about what "rekrunner" says. Don't fall for these lies.
You can usually tell who says what by reading the handle on the left.
Without any doping, would Kenya be a successful running country, yes or no?
History tells us it would, without any doubt. Do you agree or disagree?
You are asking again why are many Kenyans doping. Again, really! Maybe to get some advantage to reach the top?
Why are people robbing a bank - even when living in a rich country? Maybe to get some money in the hope to get a better life?
Without doping Kenya would be just another country with a few top athletes, like it was in the late-'60's and '70's. Doping has greatly exaggerated their success.
Complete nonsense, ignoring the facts.
Just another country...
Before 1980 (just men),
Kenya medaled (often with 2 or 3 athletes in one event)
at the Olympics (boykotted 1976)
in the 800m (64, 68, 72), in the 1500m (68, 72), in the 5000m (68), in the 10000m (68), in the steeple (68, 72)
at the Commonwealth Games
in the 800m/880y (66, 70, 74, 78) in the 1500m/Mile (66, 70, 74) in the 5000m/3 Miles (66, 70, 74, 78) in the 10000m/6 Miles (66, 74, 78) in the steeple (66, 70, 74, 78)
Kenya also has medaled in all the sprints (4x4 gold in 72)
Looking at all the distance running events, Kenya already was the No. 1 nation in the 1960s and 1970s (some might argue for Great Britain with the Marathon and Coe/Ovett in the late 1970s)
Here is but one article that draws on a range of a academic sources that demonstrate the extent of the seriousness of the doping problem in sport. Their research has been published. Yours, of course, has not. You don't even seem to be aware of what researchers like these are saying.
I appreciate the effort to "name one", but what is your point here? Is it just that Howman said "10%"?
The "extent of the seriousness of the doping problem in "sport"", is not in dispute. I already told you I accepted without dispute both of your figures that Howman said "10x" and "10%".
Parts of your published paper looks like I could have written it:
"The scope and scale of doping in ‘tested’ sport remains unclear." -- confirms knowledge is capped.
"prevalence rates could be much higher than doping control tests reveal" -- nobody argues prevalence is just 1-2%, but many seem to argue against it.
The following came from a study of the effects of doping on elite Kenyan athletes. The findings show that doping significantly enhances performance even for athletes trained at altitude. I will post the link.
"In conclusion, this is the first study to demonstrate that 4 wk of rHuEpo administration significantly increased the already relatively high basal HGB and HCT values of Kenyan endurance runners living and training at moderate altitude by ~10%. Although the rHuEpo-induced increase in key hematological parameters in these altitude-adapted Kenyan endurance runners was blunted compared with white athletes living and training at or near sea level, the relative improvements of ~5% and ~3% in running performance immediately after the rHuEpo administration and 4 wk after the last injection, respectively, were similar in both groups. This finding is also in line with the overwhelming scientific literature. Although caution is required when extrapolating findings from subelite to truly elite athletes, the significant improvements in running performance we report would almost certainly translate into a worthwhile enhancement in elite performance."
Again, I appreciate the effort, but I predicted (as a joke) yesterday you would find the Pitsiladas study where "where Kenyans tempoed 9 minute time trials at marathon pace". And here you are taking it seriously.
Actually, the same data seems to have been published 3 or 4 times so I don't know whose study it really is. But they took Kenyans who had already run the equivalent of 8:00 for 3000m, had them run 3000m time trials "clean" at 9:20 (~marathon pace), then 4 weeks later, on EPO, had them run at 9:00 (~half marathon pace). Note they were not 3000m specialists, and even clean, would have improved over 4 weeks. That is the importance of having a control group.
Their lack of effort is confirmed by RPE measurements taken during the time trials. Compared to the Scots, they simply were not trying to run all that fast.
Once again, I could have written "caution is required when extrapolating findings from subelite to truly elite athletes". Despite this caution, they writers still believed that it was significant that Kenyans tempoed 3000m time trials at marathon, then half-marathon pace, and that this "almost certainly" sheds light on elite Kenyans who have run sub-7:40.
It would be more compelling if they had trained these runners to their estimated 8:00 pace, clean, and then started EPO, bringing them to 7:40.
But even then, if they arrived at this controlled, compelling result, this would still not be enough to help conclude whether other elite runners who run 7:40 are clean or doped.
The following came from a study of the effects of doping on elite Kenyan athletes. The findings show that doping significantly enhances performance even for athletes trained at altitude. I will post the link.
"In conclusion, this is the first study to demonstrate that 4 wk of rHuEpo administration significantly increased the already relatively high basal HGB and HCT values of Kenyan endurance runners living and training at moderate altitude by ~10%. Although the rHuEpo-induced increase in key hematological parameters in these altitude-adapted Kenyan endurance runners was blunted compared with white athletes living and training at or near sea level, the relative improvements of ~5% and ~3% in running performance immediately after the rHuEpo administration and 4 wk after the last injection, respectively, were similar in both groups. This finding is also in line with the overwhelming scientific literature. Although caution is required when extrapolating findings from subelite to truly elite athletes, the significant improvements in running performance we report would almost certainly translate into a worthwhile enhancement in elite performance."
Again, I appreciate the effort, but I predicted (as a joke) yesterday you would find the Pitsiladas study where "where Kenyans tempoed 9 minute time trials at marathon pace". And here you are taking it seriously.
Actually, the same data seems to have been published 3 or 4 times so I don't know whose study it really is. But they took Kenyans who had already run the equivalent of 8:00 for 3000m, had them run 3000m time trials "clean" at 9:20 (~marathon pace), then 4 weeks later, on EPO, had them run at 9:00 (~half marathon pace). Note they were not 3000m specialists, and even clean, would have improved over 4 weeks. That is the importance of having a control group.
Their lack of effort is confirmed by RPE measurements taken during the time trials. Compared to the Scots, they simply were not trying to run all that fast.
Once again, I could have written "caution is required when extrapolating findings from subelite to truly elite athletes". Despite this caution, they writers still believed that it was significant that Kenyans tempoed 3000m time trials at marathon, then half-marathon pace, and that this "almost certainly" sheds light on elite Kenyans who have run sub-7:40.
It would be more compelling if they had trained these runners to their estimated 8:00 pace, clean, and then started EPO, bringing them to 7:40.
But even then, if they arrived at this controlled, compelling result, this would still not be enough to help conclude whether other elite runners who run 7:40 are clean or doped.
So where is the published critique of the study that confirms your views?