BACHECA DEL DOPING

[martin]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 082145.htm

[Sylvain IT]

Interessante Martin

Però, mi chiedo sempre perché su queste ricerche stanno sul vago e fanno finta di non sapere poi una frase tipo "o non serve o è molto più presente di ciò che si pensa".

Prende 1968 come punto di riferimento, ma non hanno mai sentito la storia di Bob Beamon che girava le vie di Città di Messico incapace di dormire talmente "fatto"...

Non hanno mai letto sulla conquista degli 8.000, cè gente capace di dare un nome ai prodotti usati da ogni paese.

Ciclismo, 1998, Tour de France, è stato provato l'uso di EPO esogeno per tutto il podio, i nomi sono Pantani, Ullrich, Jullich... io posso dire tranquillamente che Pantani faceva uso di EPO nel 1998 sulle strade del Tour (è stampato in documenti ufficiali...).

Deschamp nel 1998 aveva un tasso di ematocrito di quasi 52... quindi non avrebbe potuto fare gare ciclistiche

Atletica leggera, c'era una volta 2 paesi senza controlli a sorpresa fuori delle gare... Giamaica e Kenya... per ora non si è toccato alla Jamaica, però al Kenya un qualcosino a posteriori si è tolto.

Insomma, il doping serve, eccome!

[Sylvain IT]

Interessante Martin

Però, mi chiedo sempre perché su queste ricerche stanno sul vago e fanno finta di non sapere poi una frase tipo "o non serve o è molto più presente di ciò che si pensa".

Prende 1968 come punto di riferimento, ma non hanno mai sentito la storia di Bob Beamon che girava le vie di Città di Messico incapace di dormire talmente "fatto"...

Non hanno mai letto sulla conquista degli 8.000, cè gente capace di dare un nome ai prodotti usati da ogni paese.

Ciclismo, 1998, Tour de France, è stato provato l'uso di EPO esogeno per tutto il podio, i nomi sono Pantani, Ullrich, Jullich... io posso dire tranquillamente che Pantani faceva uso di EPO nel 1998 sulle strade del Tour (è stampato in documenti ufficiali...).

Deschamp nel 1998 aveva un tasso di ematocrito di quasi 52... quindi non avrebbe potuto fare gare ciclistiche

Atletica leggera, c'era una volta 2 paesi senza controlli a sorpresa fuori delle gare... Giamaica e Kenya... per ora non si è toccato alla Giamaica, però al Kenya un qualcosino a posteriori si è tolto.

Insomma, il doping serve, eccome!

[martin]

A parte il fatto che faccio fatica a capire come fanno il campionato nazionale trail a Milano, ma ecco l'ennesimo cretino.

http://marche.fidal.it/content/FIDAL-TN ... ein/117362

Ho visto il soggetto diverse volte quest'anno in gare provinciale (PC e PR) dove vinceva sempre e con una facilità disarmante. Forse adesso ho capito perché. Ma per vincere cosa? Un pacco alimentare?

La sostanza incriminato è una anabolizzante.

[subliminalpop]

Ho visto il soggetto diverse volte quest'anno in gare provinciale (PC e PR) dove vinceva sempre e con una facilità disarmante. Forse adesso ho capito perché. Ma per vincere cosa? Un pacco alimentare?

l'ho "incrociato" anch'io alla Rampigada, dove in effetti è arrivato a sorpresa terzo dietro Simukeka e Borgialli.

[MonteMario_Trail]

LO SVILUPPO DELLA PRESTAZIONE – Metodologia dell’allenamento vs Metodologia del Doping

Ho provato a fare una “composizione” da alcuni post di Canova, tra cui uno pubblicato ieri su di una discussione dal sito LetsRun:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read. ... 21&page=57

Si parla di doping e di metodologia dell’allenamento in relazione allo sviluppo della prestazione nella corsa. Canova prova a spiegare quali effetti può avere l’EPO sulle prestazioni degli atleti che lo utilizzano e di come, al contrario, sia possibile ottenere risultati di pari livello o perfino superiori tramite l’applicazione dei corretti principi dell’allenamento di endurance in atleti “puliti”. Ovviamente fa riferimento ad atleti TOP e principalmente di gare su pista o maratona, però parla anche del rapporto tra sportivi “amatoriali” e doping. E’ abbastanza tecnico in alcuni passaggi (nella parte in cui fa un paio di esempi di lavori per lo sviluppo della Potenza Aerobica) ma penso sia interessante, quindi se vi interessa approfondire potete leggerlo qui sotto:

I don't have any doubt that doping with steroids, GH, or some substance working on the nervous system, can produce advantages superior the possibility reachable with training only. The level of WR in throwing, jumping and all the women events connected with an higher level of muscle strength, clearly speak in this direction. And don't forget that the most part of athletes, positive for doping, in middle and long distances, were banned for steroids (nandrolone or similar), and the percentage of athletes banned for EPO is by far smaller than the percentage of athletes banned for other reasons.

Honestly, I'm not interested in all the speculations about EPO and blood doping. Maybe in some case athletes can have some advantage, I don't deny this possibility, but I refer this possibility to athletes not having big talent, not having the best possible training (in function of their potentiality), and not using with continuity the advantages of altitude.

When I write something, I explain HOW it's possible to reach the top (of course, with athletes of very great talent) with training only, and how one kind of training can support another type of training, and how training can modify physiological parameters (otherwise it is not possible to improve), and how exceptional talents can improve in very short time, something not possible to top athletes who are not the excellence of the elite.

There is not, and I think NEVER there will be in the future, the possibility to know IF, taking EPO, the best CLEAN athletes in the World could still improve. So said, there is no proof that doped athletes could not run the same times, win the same competitions, of doing also better, if, in clean way, they could change their training in the right direction.

What I know is that it's possible to be at the ABSOLUTE TOP (WR) in clean way, and many of the WR holder were able to achieve the WR in clean way, while others achieved the same with doping. Personally, I have the example of Brahim Boulami and Shaheen, who practically ran the same time, the first using doping, the second in clean way. But, if you go to analyze their training, you can see a lot of differences in their training philosophy, that can explain WHY both the situations produced the same results, looking at differences of enviroment, culture, mentality and phylosophy.

We know that in EPO era the WR improved in the following percentages :

The 800m by 0.5% (some of which could be tech/equipment gains), 1% for 1500m, 2.7% for 5,000m and 4.6% for the marathon.

But we DON'T KNOW if the improvement is due to the EPO assumption.

Many physiologists suppose that there is not a linear trend in the "hypothetical" effects of EPO, how it seems looking at the above data.

In these data, it seems that longer is the event, higher is the percentage of improvement. But, looking at all the researches done about the time of exhaustion (so, maximal effort), it seems that the behavior is exactly the opposite : more the effort is connected with the anaerobic capacity, more there is EPO effect, that, decreasing the effort, decreases itself.

And this situation is also showed if we see the numbers of athletes banned for EPO in the various distances : longer is the distance, smaller is the number of athletes of high level found positive, in spite of the fact that the highest number of antidoping tests (both in OOC an IC) are carried out in the long distances.

This only for pointing out what we can analyze looking at facts, not at suppositions.

Sul discorso SOGLIA ANAEROBICA (SAN) ed utilizzo dell'EPO:

it's not possible to maintain for long time a top shape using essentially workouts of high lactic intensity, because with these workouts the threshold (Soglia Anaerobica) decreases, and is not possible to run faster any distance lowering the LT.

So, many times I explained that, if I can see a long period of training (for example, 2 months), I can immediately understand who uses EPO, and who doesn't use.

ALL THE ATHLETES NOT USING LONG RUN AT HIGH INTENSITY, OR LONG AND FAST TESTS ON TRACK, FOR SUPPORTING FREQUENT LACTIC WORKOUTS, HAVE TO SUPPORT THEM IN CHEMICAL WAY, SO USE EPO.

ALL THE ATHLETES USING LONG FAST RUN IN FULL COMPETITION SEASON FOR SUPPORTING THEIR LACTIC WORKOUTS (NOT TOO FREQUENT), ARE CLEAN, BECAUSE EPO HAS THE SAME GOAL OF LONG FAST RUN : TO MAINTAIN HIGH LEVEL OF AEROBIC POWER.

That's the reason because EPO can work for fast distances (like 800 and 1500m) in NOT DIRECT WAY, but for supporting the specific training, WHILE DOESN'T WORK IN LONG DISTANCES, of course when the level of training as volume and intensity are connected with the level of the performance (something that happens in all the top marathoners in the world).

EPO can replace what athletes don't do, but can't add any further change in the physiological parameters of the athletes, when they train their Aerobic Power at their max level.

Remember that fast lactic workouts use the fuel that athletes already have in their tank, while Aerobic workouts, at different levels (from regeneration till Aerobic Capacity) have the goal to FILL the tank, so athletes training with very high percentage of lactic workouts continue to empty their tank, and need to find a system for filling it. If they don't use training for Aerobic Power, automatically they look at EPO for supporting their main training.

What happened in GBR for almost 20 years (1990-2010), when the volume disappeared and everybody looked at intensity and a lot of exercises (so, with the volume also the athletes disappeared...), is now happening in Kenya too : only the marathon runners run a proper volume, while the athletes of short distance became lazy about this type of fatigue (and in Kenya, apart Rudisha, the best runners of 800m are ALL aerobic athletes).

About the Threshold (Soglia Anaerobica), you need to know which type of training you have to do for enhancing it. One thing is to define the LT(Lactic Threshold - Soglia Anaerobica), another thing is what we have to use for ENHANCING the LT, and when we have this goal, we have to do long tests (or long continuous run) starting UNDER the threshold, but finishing the full workout OVER the threshold.

For example, if we do for 5 x 3000m for some athlete having the LT at 2:50 (HM in 59:47) in 8:40 with 3:00 recovery, we are UNDER the threshold, and the workout is purely aerobic, but if we use 12 km with 1000m in 2:42 + 2000m in 5:35 + 3000m in 8:30 and we come back with 3000, 2000 and 1000m at the same speed, we start our training about 4mml and we finish at 7 or 8mml. This increase of INTERNAL LOAD is the reason because we can enhance the Threshold.

So, you have to understood the type of training for IMPROVING the physiological qualities.

Knowing the current limits of our body, if you want to be a top athletes, means to know the BASIC limits, that you have to overtake in order to improve, not to know the HIGHER limits, that you can’t overtake, and you need to see at every training for its final goal.

This means that some LACTIC training can have the final goal to increase the AEROBIC POWER, and some ANAEROBIC ALACTIC TRAINING (for example, 4 sets of 4 times 60m at 98% of speed with short recovery and 6 minutes among every set) instead can have the effect to enhance the AEROBIC ABILITY of the FAST FIBERS, because the recovery is for oxydative way.

I'm not sure that also with not strong athletes EPO can give big advantages, if they try to increase the level of their training in both the directions (volume and intensity). The real problem is that amateurs don't have any motivation (and any final goal) for dedicating every day almost at training only, so their level of training is always very low.

This is the condition, in any sport, where every kind of doping can give more advantages, BECAUSE REPLACE THE TRAINING NOT CARRIED OUT.

So, supposing we can have some advantage with doping (but with these results I think NO), don't do the mistake to think that is NOT possible run fast WITHOUT doping, because this position can provoke two reactions only : or the athletes WANT doping thinking is the only way for being competitive, or, if refuse doping, THEY GO TO LIMIT THEMSELVES IN THEIR GOALS. So, you think to have a tough position against dopers, but at the end you are one enforcing the idea of doping in the athletes who are nothing to lose.

Instead to look at doping for the best at the moment (of course, I speak about endurance events only), you need to look at doping for who tries to fill the gap with the best, or for who was the best and is going down as shape and performances.

[mircuz]

Molto interessante e va oltre il comune pensare nei confronti del doping in generale e dell'EPO in particolare. Ossia afferma che l'epo serve a riempire quel volume di allenamento che per pigrizia non hai voluto svolgere, ma con una preparazione adeguata avresti raggiunto gli stessi risultati massimali. Cioè l'epo non aumenta le prestazioni in assoluto, ma sostituisce la formazione non fatta. In poche parole è una scorciatoia per raggiungere quei traguardi che avresti potuto raggiungere ugualmente anche da pulito.

[Corry]

L’Epo ormai te lo beccano. È roba vecchia.

Il futuro del doping, già utilizzato dagli atleti Top “meglio” seguiti, sono gli psicofarmaci in grado di aumentare la soglia del dolore permettendo al corpo umano di andare “fuorigiri” senza che intervengano prima i meccanismi di sicurezza che lo bloccherebbero.
Vedremo, ahimè, sempre più atleti morire in gara o nel sonno la notte prima o dopo...

[biglux]

https://www.sportface.it/running/runnin ... ing/564643

http://runtoday.it/2018/11/05/antidopin ... YuSjtKbpes

La strage del Bentelan!

[iozzo]

Beh, di Luisa Betti non mi stupisco. Bonfiglio invece e' una bella delusione.