Doping in XC skiing

[Tubeless]

Tucking position/aerodynamics was considered:


Gregory & Street are expert researchers on sport kinematic energy analysis and movement patterns, so I think their conclusions should hold some merit. They did measure the initial speed on top of the hill and found it to be an unrelated factor to the bottom speed. If it was true the difference was due to a doped runner pushing 4% more than everyone, he would also be seen distinguishable by speed at the top of the hill, which did not occur.

In 1988 of course we would not see this huge difference, the Norwegians didn't have this grinding advantage at that time.

Of course I concur one shall be a bit careful not just to grab out such a number of 4% for any purpose. For example in classic the glide would perhaps easily have only half the significance as in free technique. And even in free, the friction will not be as significant going uphill.

So if I was to do a calculation, I would be conservative, and perhaps give this a 2% advantage in free and 1% in classic.

Again, I would apply such advantage for 1992 only.

So now you're saying that Norwegians had a 2% advantage over everyone else in all freestyle races thanks to superior stone grinding. Regardless of snow conditions? When did this advantage start and when did it go away?

 

[dukoff]

We are indeed starting to go in circles. The arguments both ways are circumstantial and we will not resolve them here. But it's important that the claims and counter-claims are clear.

The main lesson we can learn from cycling is that during the wild 1990's and beyond (until the biological passport was implemented), it was simply not possible to be competitive without doping. I've yet to hear any rational arguments why cross-country skiing would be any different.

Doping has always been part of the sport, but EPO and HgH truly changed how easy it was to do the doping. No need for team doctors, or the complicated storing and transporting of blood. Injections could be self-administered. Secrecy was improved. There was no chance to get caught as there was no test for either EPO or HgH for a long while. An invitation to dope. Only the dumb would have not joined the party.

The EPO test did not stop doping, just made it more difficult again for individuals to do it on their own. The 4-year stretch when Germany dominated men's world cup (from 2004 to 2007) was most likely aided by a sophisticated team blood doping program via Humanplasma - continuous blood transfusions to keep up an elevated blood volume at all times. Smigun, Mae and Veerpalu had their own autologous blood transfusion program in Estonia through 2010 - aided by HgH. Austria's 2006 scandal in Torino is well documented. Some are no doubt continuing to micro-dose EPO and HgH, but with limited effect - Russians certainly look suspect.

The small FIS anti-doping budget is not helping catch anyone whose own national anti-doping organization is not actively trying to keep the sport clean. Think Putin will instruct the Russia's Anti-Doping organization to air publicly anyone caught doping? I am afraid Russia is not the only nation where the national anti-doping organization's main function is to prevent a scandal that will taint the reputation of the country.

Circumstantial argumentation is to post generalized views about the 90s like this. We already account for doping by a number of 6%.

The party who escapes from discussing data/numbers and turns into such circumstantial argumentation is typically not someone who has yet proven a point.

 

[dukoff]

So now you're saying that Norwegians had a 2% advantage over everyone else in all freestyle races thanks to superior stone grinding. Regardless of snow conditions? When did this advantage start and when did it go away?

No I agree we can not say this is true for all snow conditions. It's likely to think it did vary. And as Dæhlie said, on warm/klister it was already known stonegrinding structures that did work.

Still, the type of advantage, knowing it is such a substantial difference in technology, as steel scraping vs stone grinding, makes it quite realistic to assume this data measurement from the 50k is not some extreme outlier.

So yes, for 1992, I do not see it unrealistic to assume, not on all races, but for a great deal of them, that they often had lets say up to a 2% / 1.5% advantage in free / classic. Lets say 1.5% (free), and 1.0% (classic), to account for the possibility of the 50k showing an outlier.

 

[Discgear]

This is just ridiculously conspiratorical.
I realize now that there is zero point in "discussing" this as the accusing party is so conspiratorically minded that whatever argument or piece of evidence that doesn't fit into their world view, just changes the aspects of the conspiracy or who were involved.

When the arguments do not suffice, the classical rhetorical misbehavior is to go ad hominem. And what could beat the expression conspiracy theorist, the best way to stigmatize any opponent of opinion.

On the other hand, there are several pieces of evidence or arguments that go against the conspiracy theory of team wide doping in norwegian XC skiing as well as all other winter sports, where Olympiatoppen is singled out as the doping HQ

So it might be, but what about arguments that tell the opposite? In article from Aftenposten former team doctor Thor-Øistein Endsjø of both the Norwegian Athletics Association and the Norwegian Speed Skating Association says the following:

[my translation] We also did high altitude training with our athletes, but was never in the neighborhood of the HB-values that X-country said they could reach. Grete Waitz and Ingrid Kristiansen, who also commited High Altitude Training , never reached values over 12,5 and 14,5. Our experience was that High Altitude could give an increase of 0,5, says Endsjø and adds:
- I’m overwhelmed with doubts

Closed environment

- In the programme the X-country president Erik Røste claimed that Norwegian X-country has always been open about their activities.
- That’s not my impression. They held their cards hidden in the 80s and the 90s. Many of us asked for documentation about what was going on – that High Altitude Training could be that effective – but we never got any answers, says Endsjø, who also says that he doesn’t suspect any Norwegian skiers of doping. http://sport.aftenposten.no/sport/skivm_2013/article270176.ece

As is so well established both in cycling, XC and a number of other sports, huge doping programs leave traces.., and programs like these in norway AND sweden, which the theory is entirely dependant of, wouldn't have happened without something substantial coming out, sooner or later.

I agree, but are you prepared to look into the traces of evidence, that there has been manipulation of blood values in Norwegian endurance sports, and that they are connected to Olympiatoppen?

[my translation] He is the fourt Norwegian top athlete that has had iron poisoning. The other are athletes Marius Bakken and Susanne Wigene, and also cross-country and marathon mountain biker Gunn-Rita Dahle Flesjå. Then, their trainer Frank Evertsen himself injected the athletes. He claimes in yesterdays VG, that he was held a scape goat for something that was the practice within Olympiatoppen.
http://www.vg.no/sport/artikkel.php?artid=118153

To understand the part Olympiatoppen played, this is indeed an enlightening article:

[my translation] Head of TopSports Bjørge Stensbøl:
- Iron drugs falls under our strict policy concering vitamins and nutritions. It’s also the background to the practice of the Olympiatioppen doctors injecting iron ampoules to Team Bakken in connection with long High Altitude training camps in Kenya and Bolivia.
- In doing High Altitude Training the top athlete needs additional iron, and to assure iron from quality producers, Team Bakken got iron drugs from the doctors of Olympiatoppen.
-How can you support this practice? Sverre Mæhlum, the medical expert during Sydney Olympics says this is TOTALLY UNUSUAL, and that he has never seen injection of iron ampoules before, since you know it can lead into muscular complications.

(No answer)

- However, regardless of who injects, isn’t this in an ethical grey area?

(No answer)

Is it common practice that the medical staff of Olympiatoppen injects ampoules into their athletes to manipulate/stimulate natural values? If so, how could you defend it?

Head of TopSports Bjørge Stensbøl:
- It’s not common that the medical staff injects drugs to adjust natural values. But it can be occasions when it’s medical required ….. a few can’t do pills and therefore need injections. It’s no difference compared to at pregnant woman in the same situation. As a practice, it’s not a big difference to take pills or inject the iron drugs.
(http://www.vg.no/sport/artikkel.php?artid=8036586):


One thing that we have learned the last week, is that the famous openness about Norwegian top sports and that there is nothing to hide, is at least outside Norway painfully clear that it's simply not true. It has been threats about suing Swedish Television, a lot of pressure was put on Saltin from Norwegians before the program was broadcasted, Rasmus Damsgaard changed his statements after pressure from the Norwegians and so on.....

And now all this chaos around go public with the blood values, I don’t know, but I’m amazed about how few questions have been asked in the Norwegian media. I can assure that if this would have happened in Sweden or in Britain, it would now have turned into a full blown hurricane in media.

 

[dukoff]

Secrecy on something like altitude training is not at all any strange behavior. These are routines that considerable amount of time and research has been put in to reach optimized programs. You say what is known, but you don't really say things that may reveal any edge you think you may currently have.

It's also completely natural that iron injections is something the athletes organizations don't want any focus on. Nobody wants younger level athletes to think about issues like this. This is even true for altitude-houses, in Norway they don't want a focus on it, or blood values, and it's the reason why artificial altitude-house use is banned, as the only country in the world.

These are things that have no use except for the top level world class athletes. And the focus should be kept away from it for amateur levels. If one allows a focus on such things, the road to speculating about illegal substances becomes shorter. Very undesirable.

Also obviously for the public, they don't want them to go around discussing blood values of athletes and what ways are done to achieve this or that. It's bad publicity, bad focus.

Of course your point is valid, such secrecy could certainly be to hide something. But my point is there are very sensible reason to not want such focus, even though you are not doing anything illegal. Hence it can't be taken to indicate anything.

Iron injections are not illegal. But it's bad PR, because it's a shot, people feel this is borderline. There's a line, you either cross it, or you don't.

 

[Cloxxki]

Olsen's victory to me says either the top-15 or more were doping there, or no-one in all of that race was.
The way accomplished off-season top skiers like Musgrave are out-skied my many minutes, makes me worry.
Yes, the Russians ski and physically look worrisome. And, they're often caught, likely by lack of professionalism. Normally, a Russian chase is always a success, yet now we see a 50k where they couldn't haul in one Swede, but did have a guy out-doublepoling Northug. And on the women's side, Russians are much less impressive.

I just had a thought. To get larger amount of blood available for transfusions, could you draw like 1L (a lot), and replace that with someone else's, keep on training, and then only ad it to the body for races? How long would traces of foreign blood be found, is there a halflife, or detection horizon?

There is no excuse for Norwegians to keep winning through the EPO era. Well-talented skiers were doping to da max, een visually. To even stay in touch with them, let alone beat them, is an insult to every onlooker's inetlligence. Suppose the 50k we've seen was indeed a fully clean race, well awesome. Let us go back a couple months, and dope up on of the top-15. Heck, even #15. Apply what we know to this athlete. There is no way in heck he's not win the race with easy. The advantages of all-out doping are just too great.
And with the blood passport thing, athletes are even allowed to dope more as their values will be less suspect when they're in fact artificially elevated. A one-time doper will be caught easily (at least, when asked to give blood after a world champs which I doubt ever happens), an oldschool one, not as easily.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Well, indeed it is a bit of an irony that a swedish guy was pulling a Mühlegg

 

[Bavarianrider]

The discovery was made December 89, which is the 1990-season, and the first world championship was the following year, in 1991-season. The developments would obviously continue for years. But it was completely secret until 1992. After that it would be first a sharper, then a gradual diminishing edge as other caught up. But the advantage of being 2 years ahead in development would obviously not disappear overnight. It's not like they gave away all the structures they had developed to other nations. So there is no contradiction in any of this.


Stone grinding was already very well knwon in the 1980es. I can send you copies of a book to proof it if you want.

 

[Discgear]

And with the blood passport thing, athletes are even allowed to dope more as their values will be less suspect when they're in fact artificially elevated. A one-time doper will be caught easily (at least, when asked to give blood after a world champs which I doubt ever happens), an oldschool one, not as easily.

Exactly, and that is one of the most disturbing things with FIS waiting so long to implement the blood pass. Already after Lahti 2001, there were many medical experts who asked for individual blood passes. In the Swedish Lakartidningen an excellent article concerning this issue was published, where - by the way - mean/low/top blood values for the Swedish team from the season 93/94 and onwards was published. http://ltarkiv.lakartidningen.se/2001/temp/pda23835.pdf Let me just explain the columns in the diagram Tabell II page 5492: Upper half is female skiers and the lower is male skiers. The last two columns (Mean and Peak) are FIS values for all skiers, not only the Swedes. The first column is the values traning season and the second column is competing season nov-mar, and finally the third column is peak values for the swedish skiers. Notable is that the swedish team included one skier with extreme natural values around 170, Niklas Jonsson.

By waiting 12 years to implement this, FIS has made it possible for a row of athletes to adjust their levels in good time before the pass.

It casts a doubt when the Norwegian team after many turns, now say they are going to publish something that the Swedes did already 2001. What the Swedish team now has done is publishing individual blood values from the last three years for the current team and now they are preparing to publish individual values for the 90s.

In terms of being open, the Norwegians has a lot o prove.

There is no excuse for Norwegians to keep winning through the EPO era. Well-talented skiers were doping to da max, even visually. To even stay in touch with them, let alone beat them, is an insult to every onlooker's intelligence.

I wouldn’t say they were doping for sure, but considering their dominance in the sport and their leading position in FIS, it’s extremely important that the Norwegians are open and willing to share their history, otherwise X-country will never be a clean sport. I don’t think there’s hardly anyone outside Norway and Sweden that honestly think the Norwegian team was clean during the 90s, and of course – holding that point of view – it casts doubt about their current domination. And the big danger reaching such a conclusion is, either you start doping to compete with the Norwegians or either you quit the sport. And maybe, we are seing both those things happening today.

I just want to adress another argument, that the Norwegians weren’t doping since they were consistently producing good results throughout the season. Look at this top list of female skiers in the World Cup with most wins:

Marit Bjørgen (NOR) 57
Jelena Välbe (RUS) 45
Bente Skari (NOR) 42
Stefania Belmondo (ITA) 23
Justyna Kowalczyk (POL) 23
Larissa Lazutina (RUS) 21
Virpi Kuitunen (FIN) 20
Julia Tjepalova (RUS) 18
Katarina Neumannova (CZE) 18
Kristina Smigun (EST) 16
Petra Majdic (SVN) 16
Manuela Di Centa (ITA) 15
Ljubov Jegorova (RUS) 13
Marja-Liisa Kirvesniemi (FIN) 11
Britt Pettersen (NOR) 10

Many consistent skiers that we know for sure were doping, except the Norwegians and Kowalczyk of course.

In 2003 World Cup winner Mathias Fredriksson gave a very frank interview, where he said:

[My translation] - Now I know that I’m competitive. Earlier I simply didn’t know. I felt I always had to push the limits. It was all about chasing a standard that I knew others held, but I couldn’t figure how they reached it. The effect was over training. I was shocked.
- I chased something that I knew wasn’t natural.
From the mid-90s Mathias Fredriksson was determined to compete for the medals. They were within reach – he thought. He produced good results in the World Cup, but in the Championships he was far away from achieving his goals. Like Thunder Bay 1995:
- I was totally shocked when I saw the other contestants times, and thought I could never go that fast. Or Ramsau 1999:
- I could be 15 seconds after already at 1.5 km. I couldn’t get it. There was skiers that I ‘ve been playing with earlier and now couldn’t even go near their times.
http://www.expressen.se/sport/langdskidor/jag-hade-inte-en-chans/

 

[Alesle]

In the Swedish Lakartidningen an excellent article concerning this issue was published, where - by the way - mean/low/top blood values for the Swedish team from the season 93/94 and onwards was published. http://ltarkiv.lakartidningen.se/2001/temp/pda23835.pdf Let me just explain the columns in the diagram Tabell II page 5492: Upper half is female skiers and the lower is male skiers. The last two columns (Mean and Peak) are FIS values for all skiers, not only the Swedes. The first column is the values traning season and the second column is competing season nov-mar, and finally the third column is peak values for the swedish skiers. Notable is that the swedish team included one skier with extreme natural values around 170, Niklas Jonsson.

Interesting read, many thanks.

I find the following paragraph quite intersting in regards to the recent discussion, particularly the bolded part.

Är svenska och norska skidlöpare dopade?
Sverige hade stora framgångar i skid-VM i Lahtis. Många har ifrågasatt om inte detta kan förklaras med dopning. Världens för närvarande bäste längdskidlöpare – Per Elofsson – har deklarerat att han under vissa perioder använder sig av ett rum i sin bostad, där syreinnehållet sänkts från normala 21 till ca 15 procent (höghöjdshus). Han vistas där under tio timmar per natt men tränar utomhus dagtid i normal atmosfär. Metoden kallas »living high, train low« [19]. Emellertid, för att besvara frågan om svenska och norska längdskidlöpare är dopade har vi i Tabell II sammanställt medelvärden, standardavvikelse samt peak-värdet på [Hb] hos svenska landslagslöpare på sommaren (off) och under tävlingssäsong (on) sedan 1992. Vi har också tillgång till motsvarande värden på norska längdskidåkare, som i stort sett visar motsvarande värden som de svenska, varför de inte beskrivs i detalj här. Vid skid-VM i Lahtis var medelvärdet, SD, och högsta värdet (inom parentes) för svenska herrar och damer 150,2±4,8 (156) respektive 136,7±1,5 (138) g/l. Även om antalet testade varierar från år till år, så framgår det av Tabell II att de svenska längdskidlöparna haft i stort sett oförändrade medelvärden under tio års tid, utan något individuellt värde ovanför FIS-gränserna hos vare sig damer eller herrar. »On«-värdena är under flera år lägre än »off«-värdena. Inget talar för att svenska (och norska) skidlöpare skulle vara hematologiskt dopade vid VM i Lahtis 2001 eller under de tio senaste säsongerna.

Rough google translation, with slight modifications.

Is the Swedish and Norwegian skiers doped?
Sweden had great success in the Ski World Championships in Lahti. Many have questioned if this can be explained by doping. The world's current best length skier - Per Elofsson - has declared that during certain periods, use of a room in his home, where the oxygen content has been reduced from the normal 21 to about 15 percent (high-altitude house). He was staying there for ten hours a night, but exercise outdoors during the day in normal atmospheres. The method is called "living high, train low". [19] However, time to answer the question of Swedish and Norwegian cross-country skiers are doped, we have compiled in Table II mean values, standard deviation and the peak value of [Hb] in the Swedish national team runners in summer (off) and the competition season (on) since 1992. We also have access to the corresponding values in the Norwegian cross-country skiers, which basically show the corresponding values of the Swedish, which is why they are not described in detail here. At the Ski World Championships in Lahti, the mean, SD, and maximum values (in parentheses) for Swedish men and women 150.2 ± 4.8 (156) and 136.7 ± 1.5 (138) g / l. Although the number of tested varies from year to year, it is clear from Table II that the Swedish cross-country runners enjoyed virtually unchanged averages for ten years, without any individually values above the FIS boundaries of either ladies or gentleman. »On« values are for several years lower than the "off" values. There is no evidence that the Swedish (and Norwegian) skiers have been hematological doped at the World Championships in Lahti in 2001 or during the last ten seasons.

 

[Discgear]

I just want to address one more thing that was quite peculiar last week. After the SVT Uppdrag Granskning was broadcasted, FIS produced an official denial
http://www.skidor.com/sv/Nyheter/PressmeddelandefranFISangaendetv-programmetUppdraggranskning

A lot of questions could be raised about this denial. Peter Hemmingsson, who was FIS Medical Supervisor at Thunder Bay 1995, deny the claims from prof. Saltin that all the medalists in Thunder Bay had a blood value over 17.5.

Concerning the statement that all medal winners from 1995 had haemoglobin values over 17,5, this is refuted by Peter Hemmingsson, FIS Medical Supervisor at the 1995 Championships in Thunder Bay, who was involved with the testing there. He confirmed that blood testing was only carried out in three Cross-Country Skiing events and one Nordic Combined event and no Swedish or Norwegian athletes had haemoglobin values over 17,5.

But prof. Saltins claims have been known at least since 2005 when he first presented them at a anti-doping conference in Odense, Denmark where also Rasmus Damsgaard were present. http://idan.dk/Nyheder/122dopingkonf...=False&emneID=

Notice following, when prof. Saltin presented those facts, he was the Chairman of FIS Medical Committee. Later he was succeeded by Damsgaard. Now FIS, seven years later, presents an official denial and refer to a supervisor they hired in 1995, to deny seven year old claims that were presented of their own chairman of the Medical Committee. Something doesn’t add up.

Why have those claims been uncommented for seven years? Now, after a Swedish investigative TV-show, they produce a denial. And what about the following sentence:
no Swedish or Norwegian athletes had haemoglobin values over 17,5

In Uppdrag Granskning Kazakh, Italian and Finish athletes were also mentioned. What do other X-country nations think about that sentence? Is it FIS mission to specifically defend certain nations athletes?

 

[blueskies]

It casts a doubt when the Norwegian team after many turns, now say they are going to publish something that the Swedes did already 2001. What the Swedish team now has done is publishing individual blood values from the last three years for the current team and now they are preparing to publish individual values for the 90s.

In terms of being open, the Norwegians has a lot o prove.

http://www.expressen.se/sport/langdskidor/jag-hade-inte-en-chans/

Okay, so here you are trying to spin on the picture these days created by the swedish media, that the "norwegians" are behaving suspiciously with regards to values from the 90s and general openness. The swedish team doctor is given a chance to publicize the values anonymously, explaining the high values and claiming that the somewhat higher median is natural, given that endurance talent is related to naturally high blood values (all of which I agree with him). The same media finds twelve year old articles from a norwegian newspaper, where all the high, low and median values for all the norwegian athletes with names linked to the values were published, and with no further explanation of the numbers. They show the values to Saltin who calls out several of them as dopers, and here you are claiming that norwegians have so much to prove regarding openness, and that it's the norwegian federation that's twelve years behind??

Well .... as is confirmed by your link from läkartidningen, the researchers were given the norwegian data as well, but chose to focus on the swedish ones since there were no significant difference, and the conclusion was that none of the data revealed or indicated blood doping, valid for both swedish and norwegian athletes.

So, a swedish reporter asks a representative of the norwegian skiing federation: Are you planning to publish all the blood values from the 90s? The representative answers, since they have probably not even discussed it or even mentioned it for the athletes in questions: "There are as of today, no plans to do so". Then there's war types in swedish media: "Sweden publishes blood values from the 90s, NORWAY (yes, they actually write norway as if it was a state level decision) KEEPS THEM HIDDEN", with critical remarks from Elofsson, Håland and others. This is to sell newspapers. What you call "back and forth" is simply the correct process in order to get it done in an informed matter and respecting confidentiality agreements and making sure everyone agrees.

You and others are blaming norwegian media for not creating enough of a thunderstorm, and you ensure that if this was Sweden/England etc. But the swedish media is writing about norwegian atheletes, are they not?! They're *not* asking questions to Elofsson or Mogren? Rather using them as consultants. Where's the god damm thunderstorm you're talking of?

This is the third doping documentary regarding norwegian athletes, and it's the third documentary that has Kyrö as a main source and it's the third documentary that brings nothing new to the table. We've had our "thunderstorm" several times already. There is nothing really new (although the leaked document is fairly interesting, if it's understood adequately), other than the fact that it's produced by SVT, which is surprising. The doping controversy continues to be discussed, blood values continues to be discussed and openness continues to be discussed.

 

[ToreBear]

My take on the SVT documentary:

I like to say a bit more than terrible documentary which I did last week so here goes.
The documentary seems like a mocumentary more than a documentary.

Early on it sets the stage for blood values above 14-15 as being suspect(having spent some time here in the clinic that really surprised me).

The documentary makers apparently first started going after people with values above 16, the moved on to above 17. They then talk about the Lahti 97 numbers which they appear to have concealed the true nature of to Damsgaard. Then they focus on the thunder bay numbers which apparently showed all medal winners having above 17,5(which turns out not to be the case after all). Then they lump in Dæhlie with supposed 17,5(which seems not to be correct) with Vladimir Smirnoff(19,8).

So they head to the dark and secretive nation of Norway. Get told by the doctor Thor-Øistein Endsjø who has never seen hgb above 16(wtf?!), that 16-17-18 are lethal values(lol), and that since Norwegian skiers are Icons no one will believe they doped no matter what the evidence.

Right so Norwegians are mindless zombies that take the word of their skiing icons as words from god almighty. And if they deny or don't accept the "facts" in this program, this is the reason. Well thats a nice set up for a program.

Oh I forgot about the Danish dude who says one couldn't win in the 90s without dope. I wonder what kind of researcher uses his cycling knowledge and generalizes that onto skiing, and then making such clear cut conclusions. Thats not very thorough. It's in fact a very unscientific generalization. As far as I understand cycling, the variables relating to propulsion are quite few compared to those relating to propulsion in skiing.

So many clichés later, some dark roads, etc, lets call it mood music. We are led through a maze of poor retired skiers having to answer things about test results they probably never saw on the fly in front of a camera. Bengt Saltin really seems totally off in this program. In later articles he appears to think it's impossible to get over 17 naturally. He never seems to inquire about the measuring procedures or anything.

The doctor Thor-Øistein Endsjø is apparently 76 while Bengt Saltin is 78. Their comments in the program and after seem quite strange. Endsjø seems to have not seen blood values before since he thinks blood values should be so low. Saltin seems to think above 17 is doping. They could perhaps just be badly out dated in their fields i guess. Also with age comes an inflexibility of viewpoints. The longer one goes from the learning of new information the more resistant this information is to later change.

Then I saw the SVT debate, and it was ridiculous. Apparently the more vocal debater(ex press officer) was told that the program concept is to be aggressive and interrupt people, and so he did.

It was quite funny when Thomas Wassberg mentioned his neighbors 17 hgb.

It was quite revealing when the program maker Hasse Svens was criticized by the vocal debater(the ex press officer who is AFAIK a journalist).
His reply was:
"Look at Vladimir Smirnov(who was also there), he is so calm, only in Norway do you react like this, haven't you got a clear conscience or something?"

So Hasse Svens seems to think that the Norwegians, if they are innocent, should react the same way as mr. 19,8 does. Well that is an interesting piece of logic from the program maker. IMHO quite revealing of how shoddy his "documentary" was in trying to uncover reality. What those responsible at SVT where thinking when they trumpeted this as the tell all of doping in the sport is beyond me.

The one responsible for Uppdrag Granskning, Nils Hanson, was also there and his response to the criticism against the program was:

"I understand the way you react, because in Norway you're not used to critical reporting like this. Because they are Icons in Norway and skiing Heroes in Sweden."

Eh OK. So Norway does not have a critical press while Sweden does, and one cant investigate icons, but here in Sweden one can investigate heroes.

Wow, the arrogance and stupidity is mind boggling. This seems like the Stockholm arrogance Swedes from other parts of the country complain about. Stockholm is essentially like a bubble, and those in that bubble think they know everything so well.

We had another Stockholm journalist confidently wading into a debate in western Norway. And since the debater with the views he didn't like wrote in nynorsk(a variant of Norwegian), he started to rail against that language as a symptom of something, then generalized it to a ridiculous extent. He thought he knew everything about Norway but apparently he didn't even know why we have two written languages.

Really it is totally mind boggling.

Btw I don't think skiers are viewed as either Icons or Heroes in Norway.


Perhaps Anders Södergren put it best:

There was so much ignorance in the program that it was completely useless.

Recent criticism of the SVT "Worthless"
Anders Sodergren critical of Uppdrag Granskning

Anders Sodergren joins the ranks of critics against the Mandate Review.
Ski veteran was deeply disappointed when he saw this week's episode.
- There was so much ignorance in the program that it was completely useless, he says.

Swedish longitudinal national team veteran running tomorrow its second distance in the World Cup, 50 km classical style. He has during the week studied the blazing debate about high blood values and hit with anticipation down to see the Mandate Review. He was hugely disappointed.

"Among the most dishonest I've ever seen"
He told me early on Saturday morning about his disappointment to Sportbladet.
- I have followed the debate. It was among the most disreputable Mission review I've seen. I have realized how much the angles themselves and how little knowledge they have, he says, and continues:

- It was just ridiculous. It feels like making a program in the middle of the ski world cup and get huge publicity for it. With a content that is not worth anything. They did not show the measurement equipment nor that they had. I was shortly after that time, we had measuring equipment that could Diffa 20 units, said Sodergren.

Received much criticism
He is also critical of the list that is central to the program, the blood values ​​from a world cups contest lathis 1997th

- I was laughing when Pekka Kyro was the one who had given them the list. There falls the entire program when talking with someone who doped a nation. Of course he wants to throw **** against Norway. How the hell can you trust like that, said Sodergren.

Anders Sodergren is överygad that there have been doped riders. He said in an interview with Sportbladet 2010 that he thought all he competed against were clean.

He looked forward to the review on SVT.

But was disappointed.

Wrapped in Mandate Review has been criticized from several quarters.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/vintersport/skidor/article16343293.ab

Sorry about the translation. Ask if you need help understanding it.


Here is a long interview with a former Swedish team doctor.
http://www.svt.se/sport/vintersport/svenske-lakaren-forsberg-bestulen-pa-silver

at 13:00
50km in thunder bay:
Have been told by a well informed source that 3 of those who were 1-4 had very high values. Thinks Henrik Forsberg should have gotten silver behind Dæhlie who he thinks was clean.

He has no suspicions against Bjørn Dæhlie


22:00
Talks about the Norwegians

He also mentions the Norwegians being the first to put ringer acetat(or something) in sports drinks. Does anyone know what that might be?

Anyway he also talks about measurement problems, that has also been elaborated by Dukoff in this thread, with links. And here is another one written by Ola Rønsen and Peter Hemmingsson.

http://www.nrk.no/ytring/vare-skilopere-var-ikke-dopet-1.10929118
http://www.dagbladet.no/2013/02/27/kultur/debatt/kronikk/doping/lahti/25978156/

And there are also questions about the oft quoted Thunder bay data in themselves

http://www.dagbladet.no/2013/03/01/...ranskning/bjorn_dehlie/bengt_saltin/25997163/


So this seems like a confusing mess. It could be the original research by the grouping with the nice diagrams have been tainted by bad data. It could be Saltin was told something, he misheard, then kept saying what he misheard. Anyway, I'm sure someone will find some conspiracy somewhere.


To sum up my long view of the SVT "documentary" and following debate. Bad documentary, but the information provided subsequently by those critiquing it has cleared up some of the things discussed earlier in the thread. So in a way it might have done some good. The hypothesis that Dæhlie or the Norwegians or the Swedes doped has been severely weakened IMHO.

One personal observation is that dis documentary has made me question the value of SVTs Uppdrag Granskning if not SVT itself. I hope someone takes them to the court so at least they can admit to their incompetence and improve themselves in the future.

By the way here is a link to an article about altitude training:
http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/Vedrorende-Oppdrag-Forskning-7135235.html

It talks a lot about phosphate.

 

[ToreBear]

Olsen's victory to me says either the top-15 or more were doping there, or no-one in all of that race was.
The way accomplished off-season top skiers like Musgrave are out-skied my many minutes, makes me worry.
Yes, the Russians ski and physically look worrisome. And, they're often caught, likely by lack of professionalism. Normally, a Russian chase is always a success, yet now we see a 50k where they couldn't haul in one Swede, but did have a guy out-doublepoling Northug. And on the women's side, Russians are much less impressive.

I just had a thought. To get larger amount of blood available for transfusions, could you draw like 1L (a lot), and replace that with someone else's, keep on training, and then only ad it to the body for races? How long would traces of foreign blood be found, is there a halflife, or detection horizon?

There is no excuse for Norwegians to keep winning through the EPO era. Well-talented skiers were doping to da max, een visually. To even stay in touch with them, let alone beat them, is an insult to every onlooker's inetlligence. Suppose the 50k we've seen was indeed a fully clean race, well awesome. Let us go back a couple months, and dope up on of the top-15. Heck, even #15. Apply what we know to this athlete. There is no way in heck he's not win the race with easy. The advantages of all-out doping are just too great.
And with the blood passport thing, athletes are even allowed to dope more as their values will be less suspect when they're in fact artificially elevated. A one-time doper will be caught easily (at least, when asked to give blood after a world champs which I doubt ever happens), an oldschool one, not as easily.

Your thoughts are confusing.

That race didn't say anything to me about doping or not. I believe all were clean, but if someone were doping, I think the amounts would be so small, or the talent so lacking that it did not effect the race.

Your setting Musgrave as a standard? Look he was 22 in in Val di Fiemme. His birthday was yesterday, so he is 23 now.

http://www.fis-ski.com/uk/604/613.html?sector=CC&listid=&competitorid=90931&type=result

Anyway I think you are overestimating his capabilities. He has a big engine but has some work to do in frestyle. In classic he has a lot of work to do. His results in VdF seem in line with my current expectation of him considering all of the competition.

As for the Russians. Here is my view. They have a culture that has allowed doping. They have in the last few years faced a strong anti doping agency which was set up because of the olympics. Those who have been popped lately seem to be lower level athletes trying to get ahead of the game in order to get a chance on the national team. I think the Russians are aware that a doping scandal would be very bad for them. But, they have a ton of retired dopers running the show, so one has to observe them carefully.

And there is ofcourse the risk that lack of results will make them desperate.

Out doubble polling Northug? Your talking about Kiriukov? Nah, I don't think he is doping.
As for winning through the EPO era, I think these last pages are discussing that, and I have to catch up and read the discussion.

And personally I believe the Norwegians were clean during the EPO era.

 

[Tubeless]

No I agree we can not say this is true for all snow conditions. It's likely to think it did vary. And as Dæhlie said, on warm/klister it was already known stonegrinding structures that did work.

Still, the type of advantage, knowing it is such a substantial difference in technology, as steel scraping vs stone grinding, makes it quite realistic to assume this data measurement from the 50k is not some extreme outlier.

So yes, for 1992, I do not see it unrealistic to assume, not on all races, but for a great deal of them, that they often had lets say up to a 2% / 1.5% advantage in free / classic. Lets say 1.5% (free), and 1.0% (classic), to account for the possibility of the 50k showing an outlier.

If the advantage Daehlie had on that speed test race was due to stone grinding, why weren't all Norwegians up there with him? Was stone grinding only for Daehlie?

2 problems with your numbers. You're implying that stone grinding attributed to a 2% unique gain for the Norwegians to offset the 5-6% gain from EPO that non-Norwegians were using:

1. You concur the 2% does not apply to all types of snow conditions. In transformed (old or frozen) snow or in cold conditions, stone-grinding has a small / insignificant advantage. Yet Daehlie was beating the known dopers in all types of snow conditions.

2. By your own admission, other nations caught on with the stone grinding trick by the early 1990's. Yet Daehlie kept winning throughout the 1990's.

So let's get back to the numbers. In latter part of the 1990's, in races which had transformed snow, and Daehlie still won over others doped to Hb of 190 and above - how do you explain away the 5-6% advantage that EPO can give you?

One other note about keeping secrets. Lasse Viren, a 4-time gold medalist in 1972 and 1976 Olympics, is widely believed to have used blood transfusions which were not even illegal at the time. Yet no one close to him has confirmed this ever happened - rumors are all we have. Lance's secret would have stayed at the same level if a bitter team mate Floyd Landis wouldn't have spoken out. Indurain has a clean record, officially. Best dopers have been discreet - and quiet about their activities.

 

[dukoff]

If the advantage Daehlie had on that speed test race was due to stone grinding, why weren't all Norwegians up there with him? Was stone grinding only for Daehlie?

2 problems with your numbers. You're implying that stone grinding attributed to a 2% unique gain for the Norwegians to offset the 5-6% gain from EPO that non-Norwegians were using:

1. You concur the 2% does not apply to all types of snow conditions. In transformed (old or frozen) snow or in cold conditions, stone-grinding has a small / insignificant advantage. Yet Daehlie was beating the known dopers in all types of snow conditions.

2. By your own admission, other nations caught on with the stone grinding trick by the early 1990's. Yet Daehlie kept winning throughout the 1990's.

So let's get back to the numbers. In latter part of the 1990's, in races which had transformed snow, and Daehlie still won over others doped to Hb of 190 and above - how do you explain away the 5-6% advantage that EPO can give you?

One other note about keeping secrets. Lasse Viren, a 4-time gold medalist in 1972 and 1976 Olympics, is widely believed to have used blood transfusions which were not even illegal at the time. Yet no one close to him has confirmed this ever happened - rumors are all we have. Lance's secret would have stayed at the same level if a bitter team mate Floyd Landis wouldn't have spoken out. Indurain has a clean record, officially. Best dopers have been discreet - and quiet about their activities.

Dæhlie certainly isn't the only Norwegian standing out in the data. You can easily distinguish also Vegard Ulvang who finished 9th. Skjeldal who finished 20th is best determined by counting the 3rd in reverse from the time-gap. The results show the 1-min gap beeing between Isometsa (22nd) and Kuusisto (23rd). Hence the racer with the highest average speed of the two laps is Skjeldal. Terje Langli is not so easy to pick out, but would be one of the higher dots in the group.

I think it's important to establish the reason for the performance in 1992 specifically, because the dominance in 1992 in particular is extreme. Ulvang for example pulled off five wins and four 2nds in this season, something he was never able to either before or after.

If to assess the advantage going forward from 1992, I would perhaps suggest a half-life of one or two seasons. Probably some conditions it would be easier to develop structures and experience for, so the truth is likely more scattered. But we gotta work with some average.

 

[Discgear]

In reality, Sweden didn't have any top, top athletes in this period, doped or not. Still Niklas Jonsson came within seconds of Dæhlie on the 50k in Nagano.

I’m not sure what you are implying, but anyone who knows cross country skiing remember the special circumstances in that race. Dählie started half a minute after Jonsson and went pass him after 21 km. Dählie then did all the work in the heavy and loose tracks, with Niklas as a ruck sack. The last 2 km Niklas passed an exhausted Dählie, but finally lost with some 15 seconds. But yes, maybe Sweden didn’t just lack top athletes – maybe they were also extremely bad dopers.

The EPO test did not stop doping, just made it more difficult again for individuals to do it on their own. The 4-year stretch when Germany dominated men's world cup (from 2004 to 2007) was most likely aided by a sophisticated team blood doping program via Humanplasma - continuous blood transfusions to keep up an elevated blood volume at all times. Smigun, Mae and Veerpalu had their own autologous blood transfusion program in Estonia through 2010 - aided by HgH. Austria's 2006 scandal in Torino is well documented. Some are no doubt continuing to micro-dose EPO and HgH, but with limited effect - Russians certainly look suspect.

That’s a tough read, what you are really saying is that the only ones who have been competitive with the Norwegians, Kowalzcyk, Cologna and the partly successful Swedes since 2002 have been doped.

Secrecy on something like altitude training is not at all any strange behavior. These are routines that considerable amount of time and research has been put in to reach optimized programs.

You seem to have a lot of knowledge about the Norwegians and your argumentation partly makes sense, especially when it comes to protecting young athletes. But former team doctor for Norwegian elite teams Thor-Øistein Endsjø words paints another picture, that the cross country section kept things hidden from the other elite, and medical expertise within Olympiatoppen:
-They held their cards hidden in the 80s and the 90s. Many of us asked for documentation about what was going on – that High Altitude Training could be that effective – but we never got any answers

Interesting read, many thanks. I find the following paragraph quite interesting in regards to the recent discussion, particularly the bolded part.

Thank’s for highlighting those parts because I forgot to comment on that. I hope it’s okay to use our translation:

we have compiled in Table II mean values, standard deviation and the peak value of [Hb] in the Swedish national team runners in summer (off) and the competition season (on) since 1992. We also have access to the corresponding values in the Norwegian cross-country skiers, which basically show the corresponding values of the Swedish, which is why they are not described in detail here.

In this article, it seems that both the Norwegian and Swedish Ski Federations has given the mean values, standard deviation and the peak value of their teams for the 90s to the researchers already around 2001 when the article was published. And Yes, I would love to believe it’s true that there is no sign of doping in the Swedish or Norwegian team during the 90s but we have to remember that this article was written just after the scandal in Lahti.
What the Swedish Ski Federation announced a few days ago, was that they are now collecting individual values and contacting all the skiers about permission to publish their personal blood values for the 90s and onwards.

Espen Graff at the Norwegian Ski Federation two days ago stated that:
[my translation] - At first we will probably not publish individual values, but mean values for men and women. But it’s some work to be done before that overview is prepared.
Team manager Åge Skinstad:
-This is not values that we could get just by pushing a button.
http://www.vg.no/sport/ski/langrenn/artikkel.php?artid=10101143

That’s a little bit peculiar since mean values from the 90s concerning the Norwegian team – according to the article in Läkartidningen - was already given to the researchers in 2001.
However, I don’t think anyone outside Sweden or Norway will be satisfied if the values published, are just form the national Ski Federations, I think it has to be also the official values collected by FIS.
The Article in Läkartidningen is not an peer-review article. One of the three authors was Kalle Eriksson, who at that time was the Medical Expert of the Swedish Team. Is he the source of the values for the Swedes? And if, is that a reliable source?
Maybe Skinstad and Graff is telling the truth, they have never before been collecting the mean values from the 90s for the Norwegian team, as was claimed in Läkartidningen. Maybe Kalle Eriksson just showed the Swedish values to his collegue in the Norwegian team and got an okay, we have similar values.

Finally, it’s not easy to comment either signatures blueskies or ToreBear, but I have to address ToreBear in the following:

The doctor Thor-Øistein Endsjø is apparently 76 while Bengt Saltin is 78. Their comments in the program and after seem quite strange. Endsjø seems to have not seen blood values before since he thinks blood values should be so low. Saltin seems to think above 17 is doping. They could perhaps just be badly out dated in their fields i guess. Also with age comes an inflexibility of viewpoints. The longer one goes from the learning of new information the more resistant this information is to later change.

Since you are trying to disgrace both those experts, prof. Saltin is the long time guru within antidoping – an highly regarded expert, and both Endsjø and Saltin looked quite credible to me. If they are not to be trusted, who can we trust among the medical expertise? Damsgaard, who was working closely with Armstrong? Lereim, who indeed acted very strange in the documentary.
Another view of those two seniors, could be that they have seen quite a few things during their years, and now can allow themselves to be just a little bit more frank and outspoken.

And you are quite dishonest in your quoting of Saltin, what he said was following:

-For sure, a few individuals have normal values from 16.5 up to 17, and today they will get a dispensation, but out of 100 skiers that will be true for maybe 5 that have those high normals. And that’s not an explanation to [interrupted, but obviously aiming at the presented data] and then he turned to the Norwegians, since they had been so aggrevated in the discussion, and expressed annoyance that he and his collegues had the last 10-12 years been asking that the tests that FIS took during the 90s - about 800 male and more than 300 female - would be released, but as he expressed it:

- It’s tragic it hasn’t been done, especially not in Norway since they are holding the data.

 

[Discgear]

If to assess the advantage going forward from 1992, I would perhaps suggest a half-life of one or two seasons. Probably some conditions it would be easier to develop structures and experience for, so the truth is likely more scattered. But we gotta work with some average.

It's hard to see the value of this discussion within the subject of the thread. I guess the point you try to make is, that an explanation to how the clean Norwegians could beat EPO-pumped skiers from other countrys for such a long period of time was because an advantage of stone grinding. But the problem with this thesis is that the supposed advantage are based on glide results from one race, which is in X-country skiing simply not a sufficient base of data.

First, there is no consensus outside Norway, that just the Norwegians had this advantage in stone grinding. There was a wide spread use of stone grinding, witnessed both from the Swedes and Germans.

Secondly, the source for the supposed advantage is Ulvang and Dählie, who have all to win in pushing this argument. Their versions when the supposed mindblowing discovery was made and how long they had the advantage differs in a very strang way, and your explantion to that was far from satisfying.

 

[Walkman]

Well, indeed it is a bit of an irony that a swedish guy was pulling a Mühlegg

Had you had some sort of knowledge of XC-sking you would have known that what Olsson did was nothing like Mühlegg.

Winning by 12 seconds vs 2 minutes.

Furthermore, Olsson has shown time and time again that, when he is in top shape, he is the best skier (as in individual start).

Mühlegg on the other hand got trashed by Elofsson a few weeks before the Olympics and then turn up dominate all other in a matter that has never been seen before. Even known doper as Botvinov, Hoffmann, Di Centa, the russians and Veerpalu could not stand a chance.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Had you had some sort of knowledge of XC-sking you would have known that what Olsson did was nothing like Mühlegg.

Winning by 12 seconds vs 2 minutes.

Furthermore, Olsson has shown time and time again that, when he is in top shape, he is the best skier (as in individual start).

Mühlegg on the other hand got trashed by Elofsson a few weeks before the Olympics and then turn up dominate all other in a matter that has never been seen before. Even known doper as Botvinov, Hoffmann, Di Centa, the russians and Veerpalu could not stand a chance.

Obviously it was a bit of irony

Nevertheless Mühleg had proofen himself before, it wasn't out of nowhere. Bu that's a different story, of course.

 

[dukoff]

It's hard to see the value of this discussion within the subject of the thread. I guess the point you try to make is, that an explanation to how the clean Norwegians could beat EPO-pumped skiers from other countrys for such a long period of time was because an advantage of stone grinding. But the problem with this thesis is that the supposed advantage are based on glide results from one race, which is in X-country skiing simply not a sufficient base of data.

First, there is no consensus outside Norway, that just the Norwegians had this advantage in stone grinding. There was a wide spread use of stone grinding, witnessed both from the Swedes and Germans.

Secondly, the source for the supposed advantage is Ulvang and Dählie, who have all to win in pushing this argument. Their versions when the supposed mindblowing discovery was made and how long they had the advantage differs in a very strang way, and your explantion to that was far from satisfying.

You forget to recognize that the data shows more than just glide. It also shows who is over-performing compared to their glide, which includes DeZolt and many others finishing within top 10, but no Norwegians. The data is also important to indicate the magnitude of difference that could exist at the time between racers, purely based on skis.

It could also have been seen that other weaker racers, even though they didn't have a good finish time, could still had good skis. Well it doesn't show that. Or to be more accurate, it does show poor racers with good skis. But good only compared to everyone else than the Norwegians, which didn't have good skis, they had skis from a different planet.

You can always say, like you do, that each evidence may be an extreme non-representable case. But the differences here are just too big. And you can't say that without having to accept that each statement has a probability. Note that the 50k speed data could have shown the opposite, that Norwegians over-performed with only an average glide. And the leaked 1997 Lahti blood screening data could have shown Norwegians with Hb of 190-200. It could easily done that, and if it was true they were doped to the gills, the probability is that the data would show that. Still, it doesn't.

 

[Discgear]

And you can't say that without having to accept that each statement has a probability. Note that the 50k speed data could have shown the opposite, that Norwegians over-performed with only an average glide. And the leaked 1997 Lahti blood screening data could have shown Norwegians with Hb of 190-200. It could easily done that, and if it was true they were doped to the gills, the probability is that the data would show that. Still, it doesn't.

I can totally agree with that, but the thesis you are pushing is based on the assumption that the better glide for the Norwegians that special day, was because of some special knowledge about stone grinding. And there is simply no facts that support that - not in my knowledge or that you have given - except two testimony’s from Ulvang and Dählie, given 2008 and 2013 which area also widely differing. They both had all the reasons to push an argument of superior glide compared to their competitors during the 90s since the knowledge of EPOs impact on endurance sports came up to the surface.

Back in the early 90s you often saw - especially in the classic discipline - widely different wax results, and sure the Norwegians at occasions were very successful, as was sometimes Italians, Finns and Swedes.

Notable is that the Norwegians was less succesful in skate compared to the classic style for many years after skate skiing was introduced as a separate event in 1987. In skate, glide is everything. Those facts don’t support a major glide advantage for the Norwegians.

Notable is also, since the sprint discipline was introduced, that the Norwegians have by far been less successful in that event compared to the longer races. In sprint, glide is absolutely crucial to be competitive.

 

[Alesle]

Notable is also, since the sprint discipline was introduced, that the Norwegians have by far been less successful in that event compared to the longer races. In sprint, glide is absolutely crucial to be competitive.

You are joking, right? On the mens side, 10 of the 16 sprint world cups have been won by a Norwegian, and all 16 have had a Norwegian finishing top 3 (this season could be the first time that's not happening). In the world championship, they've won 3 of the 7 championships and podiumed in all. On the ladies side they've won 9 out of 16 sprint world cups and 4 of the 7 world championships. I don't think I would consider that as being "far less successful".

 

[MrRoboto]

Notable is that the Norwegians was less succesful in skate compared to the classic style for many years after skate skiing was introduced as a separate event in 1987. In skate, glide is everything. Those facts don’t support a major glide advantage for the Norwegians.

Sure, but a new style requires learning new techniques. The new style wasn't very popular among a lot of people in Norway. And thus, Norway fell behind on the new style, just like they did with the new v-style in ski jumping.

Notable is also, since the sprint discipline was introduced, that the Norwegians have by far been less successful in that event compared to the longer races. In sprint, glide is absolutely crucial to be competitive.

On the men's side, Norway took the first two championship gold medals in sprint, and took 50% of all the sprint medals in the 4 first championships after sprint was introduced.

These were all years when Norway weren't as successful in the other disciplines.

 

[dukoff]

the thesis you are pushing is based on the assumption that the better glide for the Norwegians that special day, was because of some special knowledge about stone grinding. And there is simply no facts that support that - not in my knowledge or that you have given - except two testimony’s from Ulvang and Dählie, given 2008 and 2013 which area also widely differing.

No, now you are twisting the arguments 180 degree

Dæhlie's and other's statements about this advantage is not an evidence to support my hypothesis!

The hypothesis about the advantage (also referencing the Albertville 50k) is laid out by their statements, not me. And the data from Albertville 50k is supporting evidence of their hypothesis, and of their credibility.