Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Keino Accuses Gammoudi

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by gh
    Steroids were legal in '68 and blood doping, I'm pretty sure, hadn't yet been invented.

    Suspect Keino conflating Gammoudi with other dodgy North African nations to come.

    When did Jouko Kuha (not related to our erstwhile poster!) set his steeplechase WR? I seem to recall that there was a clear impression he was doing something unusual - blood doping?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Powell
      The question is whether anyone realized they could be used to improve endurance.
      err... yeah

      it's called anaemia

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by catson52
        Originally posted by gh
        Steroids were legal in '68 and blood doping, I'm pretty sure, hadn't yet been invented.

        Suspect Keino conflating Gammoudi with other dodgy North African nations to come.

        When did Jouko Kuha (not related to our erstwhile poster!) set his steeplechase WR? I seem to recall that there was a clear impression he was doing something unusual - blood doping?
        His record was set in July of '68. Without pretending to any knowledge that I do not have, I'd just say that this basic period is as early as I've ever heard in regard to RUMORS or SUGGESTIONS of blood-doping. That timing makes perfect sense, frankly, given the build-up to Mexico City and the attention lots of coaches and physiologists were giving to high-altitude performance. Eldrick's very common-sense observation is sobering: this wasn't rocket science, and the basic notion would not have been foreign to the medical profession.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by catson52
          When did Jouko Kuha (not related to our erstwhile poster!) set his steeplechase WR?
          Erstwhile? I believe he's still very much around. (Which is a good thinig.)

          The answer to your question is July, 1968, a few months before the Mexico City Olympics.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Brian
            Originally posted by eldrick
            blood doping is just a blood transfusion, which has been around successfully since '30s :

            any doc with 1/2 a brain ( even a med student with 3/4 of a brain ) & a willing athlete couda done it anytime after the '30s

            Good point. Maybe too scared of the viscosity causing death factor? Didn't think about Heparin, et al?
            i checked some conditions &- polycythaemia rubra vera ( disease producing too many red cells ) can push haematocrit into the 80s !!!

            that must be like 4 or 5 extra pints of blood in the system & they can survive ( not for long without blood-letting )

            it's safe to say an extra 1 or 2 pints with adequate hydration ( & maybe some diuretic cover ) is not much of a risk

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by catson52
              Originally posted by gh
              Steroids were legal in '68 and blood doping, I'm pretty sure, hadn't yet been invented.

              Suspect Keino conflating Gammoudi with other dodgy North African nations to come.

              When did Jouko Kuha (not related to our erstwhile poster!) set his steeplechase WR? I seem to recall that there was a clear impression he was doing something unusual - blood doping?
              He did a WR. That's pretty unusual :wink:

              I've never before heard Kuha's specific name being attached to blood doping but can't disprove it (though it's worth mentioning that he wasn't part of any major distance running team). Besides Maaninka, Mikko Ala-Leppilampi also admitted blood doping - I'm not sure if he ever gave a time frame but he didn't improve noticeably after 1970, which as we can all see happens to be the year before '71. Finnish distance running came back to the very top between '68 and '72 - admittedly, that also coincides with new training regimes being introduced here by Arthur Lydiard and his pupils, and with an increase in the number of Finnish running enthusiasts, so it can't be automatically assumed to be all due to blood doping. But we certainly were pioneers in blood doping (and, regrettably, are still pretty good at it).

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by eldrick
                well, seeing as he's just about the only world class athlete tunisia has ever produced, it does make you wonder...
                quite to the contrary, I wonder far more about small nations that produce multiple world-class athletes; one is an outlier, multiples are a hint of.....

                Comment


                • #23
                  nowdays, we only get that sort of "small country-excellent crop" in technical events like belaruskies in hammer ( also hungarians in same ? )

                  viable explaination is because of difficulty of event & supposed lack of depth compared to running events - small country can hire the best coaches & make concerted effort to find big, motivated guys for an event - you can "buy" success in it

                  however, running events have too much depth & there is no huge technical wizadry involved in running for a small country to dominate ( in the past small countries like finland dominated in '20s in middle/long distances but i'd put that down simply to lack of competition/depth ( no africans ) )

                  modern days, jama is an exception, but they have had good sprinters for a few years now & in the past - if a small country dominates some running events, it's likely because they are "special" in some way - probably genetically ( but also thru naughty ways )

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Keino accuses Gammoudi

                    Originally posted by Bauchwalzer
                    I have immense respect for Keino but, perhaps, he has a grudge with Gammoudi, a great runner as well. Maybe I'd put more credence to it had Gammoudi been a "one hit wonder". The truth on this will never be known, odds are.
                    Agree w Bauchwalder re Keino, and I would put more credence in K's assertion had he actually offered a reason, or even suggested what some of his evidence for this assertion is. In the absence of any persuasive supporting evidence for this claim, it sounds like the reason is, "anyone who beat me had to be doping." In the absence of evidence, I'll go with this possibility: maybe, just maybe -- not utterly unlike Keino himself -- Gammoudi was really talented, and really well-prepared. It's possible.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by tandfman
                      Originally posted by catson52
                      When did Jouko Kuha (not related to our erstwhile poster!) set his steeplechase WR?
                      Erstwhile? I believe he's still very much around. (Which is a good thinig.)

                      The answer to your question is July, 1968, a few months before the Mexico City Olympics.
                      Kuha, my apologies for totally inciorrect usage of the English language. Tandfman, thanks. I have umpteen track magazines and books literally within five feet of this computer. I was just too lazy to look it up, whilst taking a break from trying to prepare an article for submission to a scientific journal.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Keino accuses Gammoudi

                        Originally posted by Master Po
                        Originally posted by Bauchwalzer
                        I have immense respect for Keino but, perhaps, he has a grudge with Gammoudi, a great runner as well. Maybe I'd put more credence to it had Gammoudi been a "one hit wonder". The truth on this will never be known, odds are.
                        Agree w Bauchwalder re Keino, and I would put more credence in K's assertion had he actually offered a reason, or even suggested what some of his evidence for this assertion is. In the absence of any persuasive supporting evidence for this claim, it sounds like the reason is, "anyone who beat me had to be doping." In the absence of evidence, I'll go with this possibility: maybe, just maybe -- not utterly unlike Keino himself -- Gammoudi was really talented, and really well-prepared. It's possible.
                        The really hilarious irony is that Keino's own 3:34.9 was a far more off-the-chart performance than Gammoudi's 14:05! If Keino had been anywhere near his 1500 form for the 5000 final, he would have won easily.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by eldrick
                          blood doping is just a blood transfusion, which has been around successfully since '30s :

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

                          it wasn't exactly rocket-science by the time of the '60s, so i have no idea why this swedish researcher thought it may have not been tried before '71, just because it wasn't in the literature

                          any doc with 1/2 a brain ( even a med student with 3/4 of a brain ) & a willing athlete couda done it anytime after the '30s
                          I'll try to get the whole article scanned: it seems that one of the keys to the whole thing was developing methodologies for preserving the blood for a longer period of time than what was considered acceptable at the time. We are talkign almost 40-year-old technology at this point.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Remember that Keino had to drop out of the 10k due to (gall bladder ?) pain. So, he may not have felt too good for the 5k.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by gh
                              Originally posted by eldrick
                              blood doping is just a blood transfusion, which has been around successfully since '30s :

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

                              it wasn't exactly rocket-science by the time of the '60s, so i have no idea why this swedish researcher thought it may have not been tried before '71, just because it wasn't in the literature

                              any doc with 1/2 a brain ( even a med student with 3/4 of a brain ) & a willing athlete couda done it anytime after the '30s
                              I'll try to get the whole article scanned: it seems that one of the keys to the whole thing was developing methodologies for preserving the blood for a longer period of time than what was considered acceptable at the time. We are talkign almost 40-year-old technology at this point.
                              i'd think that may be correct if you were doing autologous transfusions ( taling off 1 pint of blood from yourself, storing it in a fridge & re-transfusing it a few weeks later ), but no one was checking blood-doping then - you simply coud get your crooked doc to pick up a pint of blood from the local blood bank ( compatible blood of course ) & just transfuse that

                              i never saw the point of autologous transfusions back then apart from obvious risk of blood-bank transfusions ( hepatitis or bad luck for the sample to contain prohibited substances - but chances of both are pretty low ( blood was screened pretty well back then for transmissible diseases & you'd be damn unlucky to get transfusion from a donor on steroids ! )

                              the only other advantage of an autologous transfusion i can see is that it is a perfect match ( even someone else's "compatible" blood is going to have some minor blood group mismatches despite main ones of ABO & Rhesus being the same - there are a dozen other minor classes ) - homologous blood will last longer in the circulation than the external one, which will undergo a degree of minor haemolysis because of smaller group mismatches - for argument's sake it may last 1 or 2 weeks longer in circulation

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                They were def. going the autologous route.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X