Doping in XC skiing

[Discgear]

Well as a well functioning democracy we hold our media to a high standard, and don't swallow hole everything that comes on television.

http://www.dagbladet.no/2013/03/02/sport/langrenn/doping/25995839/

Thanks för the Link. Dagbladet is one of the finest newspapers in Norway, and this article is certainly a good exempel of the high standards you are reffering to in Norwegian Media. I've translated some sections so our English speaking friends can get a taste.


There is a Fresh Water Spring Urinator sneaking around in the Nordic winter paradise. He is called Kari-Pekka Kyrö, born up in Utsjoki close to the Norwegian border in Lapland. Kari-Pekka is a former Finnish ski instructor and has spent the past 16 years of his life to sprinkle his drops of Urin over everything that we thought was white, clean and nice.

…….

THAT is why Kyrö again is spraying his Urin Drops over the border into Norway where he has the fresh water springs of his dreams. Will he pollute the pure and innocent Norwegian ski-sport, shall he grow doubt and disbelief among the last holy men in winter sports.

……..

Or do we rather see this Fresh Water Spring Urinator and a Swedish Broadcasting Community which lacks any knowledge of sports, determine whom is going to be allowed to race fast on skiis in the future?

Is it still allowed to be born with skiis on the feet?

 

[Tubeless]

Assuming the Norwegians were doping, how come nobody was able to match them on results, through the whole 90s? To suggest the Norwegians doped alot more than others through a decade is simply too far fetched and unserious claim. I can't see any other answer to that question than it had to do with either a better ski preparation and/or natural selection. We can't avoid giving credit to these two factors, because the EPO was in principle availbable to everyone.

Hence, the question is not IF these factors shall be included, but of which magnitude they may be considered to have. They need to be estimated, if we want to analyze this in a serious manner.

So "natural selection" I will then define to include a series of personal factors like; genes/physique, winning mentality, techinque/efficiency.

How was Lance Armstrong able to beat all his doped competitors at the Tour de France, 7 years in a row? We now know it was because he could afford Dr Ferrari's services, the best in the business. Norway often proudly presents how its ski team has the biggest budget of all nations, most money to throw at staying on top. National oil wealth has its benefits.

On the topic of stone grinding, it should be noted that most stone grinding machines are manufactured in Italy. Tazzari of Italy was the leading brand at the time. Norway did not invent stone grinding - and it's a stretch to claim that Italians wouldn't have been aware of the latest developments as Tazzari personnel had a keen interest in selling as many of their $20,000+ machines as possible to all national teams.

The "natural selection" is a convenient explanation when none other are left. It can't be measured or proven so the % impact could be whatever you imagine. But it can easily be countered. Germany dominated men's skiing from 2004 to 2007 with 3 different world cup winners. With 80M people to choose from, Germany had a large pool of talent to pick from. Natural selection at work?

Of course, there's a more logical argument to Germany's success in cross-country and biathlon during that era. But you don't seem to accept a medical advantage to be worth considering.

 

[northstar]

Thanks för the Link. Dagbladet is one of the finest newspapers in Norway, and this article is certainly a good exempel of the high standards you are reffering to in Norwegian Media. I've translated some sections so our English speaking friends can get a taste.

The article reads like sensationalism tabloid writing. The author clearly does not like the Swedish documentary.

Based on that, it appears either the documentary is really bad or the Norwegian media are very biased against it.

 

[MrRoboto]

Dagbladet is probably the worst news paper in Norway. Not sure if Discgear is joking here.

 

[northstar]

Dagbladet is probably the worst news paper in Norway. Not sure if Discgear is joking here.

Haha. If that's the case, the Fresh Water Spring Urinator makes sense now.

 

[Tubeless]

no worries.

knowing what we NOW know about the wild, doped 90s, and having been a long-time admirer of both the sport of xc skiing in general and the norwegian phenomena in particular, i don't see how asking some uncomfortable but valid questions (in a careful, respectful of athlete's reputations way) can be so antagonistic to a whole nation's self reflection. that none of the main stream media can rise to this level is disappointing and perhaps indicative of a wider problem. but thanks anyway.

Cross-country skiing is a matter of national pride in all Scandinavian countries. You must have ironclad proof before you dare to accuse anyone of doping. If you're found to have made a false accusation, you get national scorn for damaging the country's reputation. In Norway, in particular, accusing a national hero like Daehli of doping is akin to treason - not worth for even tabloid newspapers to touch, given the visibility and angel-like innocence enjoyed by the national ski team.

A case in point. In Finland, the national news agency STT published a report about the use of doping substances by some national team members in 1998. Officials in charge were outraged - and demanded public apology. The Finnish Ski Association sued for monetary damages from STT which lost the case as it did not have proof that would hold in court. (The case was reopened a few years ago and reversed - and in the process outing the Finnish team doping for all to see).

But social media and forums like this one are starting to change the tone of the discussion. There's now pressure on the national teams like never before. FIS could act as the change agent, but guess who's the equivalent of Pat McQuaid at FIS? Vegaard Ulvang of Norway. The cycling doping revelations in Norway have served as a recent catalyst, but it's still too touchy for the regular press to jump on the case. In Lance Armstrong's case, it took the federal investigation and finally Travis Tygart to get the press to start writing articles that earlier would have gotten them sued by Lance's army of lawyers.

 

[blueskies]

Haha. If that's the case, the Fresh Water Spring Urinator makes sense now.

I don't like Esten O. Sæther one bit, I think he's a ******, actually, but for other reasons. However, that he hates doping, can't be denied.

But to the point. The english translation is indeed funny, but it doesn't make much sense since the author makes use of norwegian idioms as well as cliches, and reading it in english doesn't at all give the same impression unless the translator is a tad less biased and a tad more skilled.

Dagbladet used to have something called "Sportsmagasinet", or something like that. Don't remember exactly, but it was phenomenally good. All the good writers from that time has now moved on, and we're left with Sæther and Pedersen :/ .

---

I see that one poster repeatedly claims that no questions are being asked, despite that he has been given several links to articles of the kind I believe he requested. Here's another link: http://www.vg.no/sport/ski/langrenn/artikkel.php?artid=10100794

"This is how dirty skiing was in the 90s", this was all over the front page on the largest news paper in norway..

The main interviewee in that article, Johan Kaggestad, is the father of Mads Kaggestad, former pro cyclist, who took part in a research project on the effects of EPO, and was actually given EPO. Both are today cycling commentators on norwegian tv and both are outspoken critics against doping. Interesting thing here is that Kaggestad was the trainer for Grete Waitz and Ingrid Kristiansen, both of whom made phenomenal results in long distance running (and Waitz actually became a friend of Armstrong through cancer. She died in 2011, before Armstrong admitted doping obviously). The norwegian doctor that appeared in the documentary, Thor-Øistein Endsjø, was the medical advisor working with the girls and Kaggestad (presumably). He (Endsjø) has been used as a source both on this forum and elsewhere, although he has stated that he doesn't believe Dæhlie doped. The ironic thing is that I'm 100 percent sure that many of the "naturally suspicious" on this board would have easily thrown Waitz and Kristiansen, whereas not to mention Vebjørn Rodal (which is crazy if you know this guy) in the same doping bucket of norwegian endurance sports.., at the same time using the doctor (Endsjø) as supporting source for the view that Dæhlie was in fact doping, which is a view that Endsjø doesn't hold.. Kaggestad agrees to the suggestion that many foreigners will never believe that Dæhlie and others were clean, and that they had the same "problem" with Waitz and Kristiansen. It's a soup.

There are no more reasons for norwegian newspapers to "ask questions" to Dæhlie and Alsgaard, than there are for swedish newspapers to ask questions to Elofsson and Mogren. The racers have been interviewed. They have explained their views extensively. Is the media supposed to find dirt that isn't there? Yes, a guy called Gerhard Helskog did that. He fell for Kyrö's tricks and winded up producing a documentary full of clear and proven factual errors. As a reward, he was sent by his television company (which was commercial by the way, unlike SVT) on a plane to the US and asked to stay out of sight for a couple of years until the public had forgotten about the incident..it's basically an ABC in 'how not to be a journalist'.

Here someone's going to say that the only reason this was regarded as bad journalism, is the inconvenient conclusions drawn from it. That is a truth-relativistic viewpoint, and needless to say, epistemologically unacceptable.

 

[northstar]

I don't like Esten O. Sæther one bit, I think he's a ******, actually, but for other reasons. However, that he hates doping, can't be denied.

But to the point. The english translation is indeed funny, but it doesn't make much sense since the author makes use of norwegian idioms as well as cliches, and reading it in english doesn't at all give the same impression unless the translator is a tad less biased and a tad more skilled.

Dagbladet used to have something called "Sportsmagasinet", or something like that. Don't remember exactly, but it was phenomenally good. All the good writers from that time has now moved on, and we're left with Sæther and Pedersen :/ .

---

I see that one poster repeatedly claims that no questions are being asked, despite that he has been given several links to articles of the kind I believe he requested. Here's another link: http://www.vg.no/sport/ski/langrenn/artikkel.php?artid=10100794

"This is how dirty skiing was in the 90s", this was all over the front page on the largest news paper in norway..

The main interviewee in that article, Johan Kaggestad, is the father of Mads Kaggestad, former pro cyclist, who took part in a research project on the effects of EPO, and was actually given EPO. Both are today cycling commentators on norwegian tv and both are outspoken critics against doping. Interesting thing here is that Kaggestad was the trainer for Grete Waitz and Ingrid Kristiansen, both of whom made phenomenal results in long distance running (and Waitz actually became a friend of Armstrong through cancer. She died in 2011, before Armstrong admitted doping obviously). The norwegian doctor that appeared in the documentary, Thor-Øistein Endsjø, was the medical advisor working with the girls and Kaggestad (presumably). He (Endsjø) has been used as a source both on this forum and elsewhere, although he has stated that he doesn't believe Dæhlie doped. The ironic thing is that I'm 100 percent sure that many of the "naturally suspicious" on this board would have easily thrown Waitz and Kristiansen, whereas not to mention Vebjørn Rodal (which is crazy if you know this guy) in the same doping bucket of norwegian endurance sports.., at the same time using the doctor (Endsjø) as supporting source for the view that Dæhlie was in fact doping, which is a view that Endsjø doesn't hold.. Kaggestad agrees to the suggestion that many foreigners will never believe that Dæhlie and others were clean, and that they had the same "problem" with Waitz and Kristiansen. It's a soup.

There are no more reasons for norwegian newspapers to "ask questions" to Dæhlie and Alsgaard, than there are for swedish newspapers to ask questions to Elofsson and Mogren. The racers have been interviewed. They have explained their views extensively. Is the media supposed to find dirt that isn't there? Yes, a guy called Gerhard Helskog did that. He fell for Kyrö's tricks and winded up producing a documentary full of clear and proven factual errors. As a reward, he was sent by his television company (which was commercial by the way, unlike SVT) on a plane to the US and asked to stay out of sight for a couple of years until the public had forgotten about the incident..it's basically an ABC in 'how not to be a journalist'.

Here someone's going to say that the only reason this was regarded as bad journalism, is the inconvenient conclusions drawn from it. That is a truth-relativistic viewpoint, and needless to say, epistemologically unacceptable.

Thanks for the link. I’ve read some of the articles that were linked up thread as well. I’m using Google Translate and, unfortunately, much is lost in translation. In fact, the garbled text can be hysterically funny. Luckily, there are numerous informed posters on this board that provide valuable insight.

I think that Gerhard Helskog’s flawed documentary from years ago should not prevent today's media to look into the matter. New information has emerged about doping in Norway and it should be investigated further.

 

[dukoff]

Dominating throughout the rest of the 90s? Yes, dominating.

Just look at the picture you posted. Of the top-10 in the world cup standing 4 of them were norwegians from 92-94 and in 97. 1995 and 96 Norway had 2 in the top-10 and in 1998 they had 3 in the top ten. During these 7 years, Dæhlie won the worldcup 5 times and finished second twice. Alsgaard won it once and Ulvang finished second once and third once. The rest of the top-10 skiers are, save the swedes, ONLY know dopers.



Indeed, that seems farfetched. But does it seems right that a 2% gliding advantages explains why they could beat EPO and blod-doping competitors, which we know can give up to 10-15% performance boost?

I am not saying that the norwegians doped, but those performance are indeed spectacular in an era of full blown doping.

I mean, look at a guy like Frode Estil.

In 114 wc-starts 20 podiums. Thats a 17,5% success rate.

In Olympic games he has 6 individual starts and 3 individual medals. Thats a success rate of 50%!

He has 14 individual starts in World Championships and 8 individual medals. Thats a success ate of 57%!

Now, I don't really think Estil doped, but you never know. Those statistics are pretty good.

So dominating because he wins the overall world cup? Is that a good measure?

look at these top 10:
1985: 2 Swedes, 4 Norwegians
1986: 5 Swedes, 3 Norwegians
1987: 4 Swedes, 1 Norwegian
1988: 3 Swedes, 2 Norwegians

1982, women, Norway on 1. 2. 4. 5.
1984, women, Norway on 3. 4. 7. 8. 10.
1985, women, Norway on 1. 2. 3. 4.

I don't want to be sleek, but I do look at Norway and Sweden as quite an homogenuous group in this regard. If talent's come from Norway or Sweden is typically a question of era, just the random time cycles of when strong talents appear. In the 80s Sweden had a good run, and in the 90s they had a draught, while the Norwegians had a good run. But it's really quite unprecedented for neither of these countries, or Russia we may add, to dominate. It really is no precedence for that.

I mean, look at the medals tables. We certainly didn't get all these medals in the 90s:

Nordic World Championship medals:

Or the recent XC Championship:

Can you spot some Norwegian flags?

World Cup, Nations cup:

men's overall:

My whole point is that we can't dismiss the possibility that the historic precedence of domination, both before the 90s and after the 90s, also potentially could have bridged a doping gap in the 90s. If there was no precedence, sure, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

So for the 90s we need to identify these individuals. Who were supposed to be competitive with Dæhlie? Who should beat him?

You can't say 10-15% advantage. This is not serious. You may get 10-15% for lower level athletes, but that will in large degree not be a pure doping-gain. Top world class athletes are so close to their potential that you can't pull out such margins. 5-6% is realistic to assume.

 

[dukoff]

The "natural selection" is a convenient explanation when none other are left. It can't be measured or proven so the % impact could be whatever you imagine.

I can't be measured? That's such a no-confidence and unscientific statement. Or you just don't want to try?

Germany you can say have 80million, but a population alone with a few isolated years of performance is not enough to argue it's due to natural selection. How they can jump from nowhere straight into the top of the medals table..? They leave a completely different trail of suspicious data points.

 

[Tubeless]

I can't be measured? That's such a no-confidence and unscientific statement. Or you just don't want to try?

Germany you can say have 80million, but a population alone with a few isolated years of performance is not enough to argue it's due to natural selection. How they can jump from nowhere straight into the top of the medals table..? They leave a completely different trail of suspicious data points.

I don't believe a 10% doping advantage is possible to beat clean unless the doper is originally, or at the specific race-day-form, a sub top-15 racer. Though I don't think either 10% is representable.

In Thunder Bay Dæhlie finished all races at +1-1.5%.
6% - 2% (altitude training) - 1.5% = 2.5%..

That is 2.5% that must be attributed to something.
This is what I consider realistic to attribute to natural selection, or combination of natural selection and ski preparation. We haven't gotten to quantify natural selection yet, but my previous post is a start on that path.

To offset the 6% gain from EPO, you're showing inventive math.

1. You're assuming Smirnov was the only EPO doper in 1995. He was probably the one most willing to risk his health to dope up to HB of 197 - but this gave him arguably more than a 6% benefit. A more representative comparison would be to Myllyla which means you'd have to find another 2-3% offset somewhere.

2. What basis you have to suggest that altitude training gave Norwegians a unique 2% advantage? For races held at sea level such as Thunder Bay, many top athletes today won't go high to prepare as there's no proven benefit. In contrast, for races that are at altitude, you need altitude time to acclimatize.

3. By 1995, the famous Norwegian stone-grinding advantage was no longer relevant as others have caught on. There were no reports (that I am aware of) that Norwegians had a noticeable advantage in skis at Thunder Bay. Yet, you're willing to put in a 1-2% gain on this - just to make up the numbers?

4. How exactly do you quantify how much the co-called "natural selection" (Norwegian Darwinism?) contributes?

 

[ToreBear]

no worries.

knowing what we NOW know about the wild, doped 90s, and having been a long-time admirer of both the sport of xc skiing in general and the norwegian phenomena in particular, i don't see how asking some uncomfortable but valid questions (in a careful, respectful of athlete's reputations way) can be so antagonistic to a whole nation's self reflection. that none of the main stream media can rise to this level is disappointing and perhaps indicative of a wider problem. but thanks anyway.

Well the documentary kind of insinuates things about Norway, the Norwegian mindset etc. which I personally found annoying. This documentary was anything but careful and respectful.

You mean sink to this level? Well as I explained above, journalism has internal rules governing quality.

Also the ski association is collecting blood values. When they present it, the questions can start.

Btw, with Finnish and Italian Blood doping, DDR and the Soviet Unions "enhancement" program, were the 80s that much less wild?

 

[Discgear]

On 25 May 2006 Ulvang was named chairman of the executive board of the International Ski Federation's cross-country committee, taking over from Peter Petricek of Slovenia, who decided to step down after four years in the job. Ulvang was given the position without election after the board of the FIS decided unanimously that Ulvang was the best man for the job. [Wikipedia]

Just to sum up a few things, before the discussion gets lost in a debate about the Norwegian Media.

Ulvang - who is now the top man in the International Ski Federation's cross-country committee - was a close friend to Vladimir Smirnov years before Lillehammer and reported to been having a close relationship to Manuela Di Centa well before Lillehammer. With reported blood-values of 198 for Smirnov and 173 for Di Centa at Lahti 1997, it casts some doubts over their close relationships. We certainly shouldn’t use guilt by association but at least it should raise some questions. On the other hand, most of us seem to use guilt by association concerning Di Centa since she was on some list that Dr Conconi had.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/28/sports/winter-olympics-smirnov-s-long-race-and-wait-are-over.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/14/s...of-italy-shouts-volare-to-freestyle-gold.html

In 2009 Danish newspaper published an article that put heavy suspicions on Dr. Rasmus Damgaard, and his connections to two of the world's best cycling teams - Bjarne Riis' Team CSC Saxo Bank and Astana cycling team with the seven times Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong. Ulvang and the other top leaders at FIS didn’t seem to bother. Damsgaard is still the Anti-Doping expert at FIS. It certainly looks strange that Rasmus have had those close connections to Astana cycling team and Team CSC Saxo Bank, even during his years as at FIS. We certainly shouldn’t use guilt by association, but at least it should raise some questions.
English translation: http://www.podiumcafe.com/2009/1/25/735893/damsgaard-under-fire
Original article: http://www.b.dk/kultur/dopingjaegerens-cykel

What is notable is that Damsgaard and Ulvang started their positions at the same time. I’ve said it before, but it’s worth looking closer into what has happened the last two weeks. Damsgaard changed his mind on the document from Lahti 1997 after the program was broadcasted, the same document that was the fundament of the investigative program from SVT. Two days later he explained that the values from 1997 weren’t reliable due to the equipment. According to SVT, Damsgaard changed his mind after being contacted by the Norwegian Ski Federation.
Dählie himself claimed that he had contacted FIS (Ulvang?), and that Rasmus Damsgaard had confirmed that nothing was not normal or suspect with either his or other Norwegians blood samples.
But when SVT contacted Rasmus Damsgaard he claimed that he have never seen any of the blood values from Dählie and that he has never seen any files from before 2001.
http://www.svt.se/ug/ikvall-chatta-om-blodracet-i-skidsparen

Concerning prof. Bengt Salting, he has been surprisingly frank and outspoken the two last weeks. He was one of the main forces behind establishing the World Anti-Doping Agency. Today it is 7 years since his retirement from FIS. He has most certainly seen whatever values collected in the FIS laboratories there are. He is under doctor’s oath until he dies. Because of that, he can’t comment on any personal blood values he has been presented during his time as FIS medical expert.

When he now – as a retiree - is presented a list from 1997, he can comment on that.
So when he says that he is skeptical to Norweigan Cross Country skiing in the 90s, there should at least be raised some concerns. He was also very clear in his statements about the presented list from Lahti 1997, that it was reliable and that the high values were troublesome, for the Norwegians as well as the Swedes.
http://www.vg.no/sport/ski/vm/2013/artikkel.php?artid=10100971
http://www.vg.no/sport/ski/langrenn/artikkel.php?artid=10100794

 

[dukoff]

To offset the 6% gain from EPO, you're showing inventive math.

1. You're assuming Smirnov was the only EPO doper in 1995. He was probably the one most willing to risk his health to dope up to HB of 197 - but this gave him arguably more than a 6% benefit. A more representative comparison would be to Myllyla which means you'd have to find another 2-3% offset somewhere.

2. What basis you have to suggest that altitude training gave Norwegians a unique 2% advantage? For races held at sea level such as Thunder Bay, many top athletes today won't go high to prepare as there's no proven benefit. In contrast, for races that are at altitude, you need altitude time to acclimatize.

3. By 1995, the famous Norwegian stone-grinding advantage was no longer relevant as others have caught on. There were no reports (that I am aware of) that Norwegians had a noticeable advantage in skis at Thunder Bay. Yet, you're willing to put in a 1-2% gain on this - just to make up the numbers?

4. How exactly do you quantify how much the co-called "natural selection" (Norwegian Darwinism?) contributes?

1. I never by any means assume Smirnov was the only EPO doper in 1995. I make an argument here about Thunder Bay, assuming the winner has a 6% doping advantage. But I will get back to Myllylae later, in respect to natural selection. He deserves to be analyzed.

2. Altitude training does not provide a unique advantage to Norwegians. It provides an advantage for any clean athlete to legally acquire some of the performance that dopers get illigaly from blood-infusion and/or EPO.

3. I did not put any 1-2% advantage to skis for Thunder Bay. I said there is lacking a 2-3% which, if Norwegians were clean, must have been compensated by either natural selection or a combination of that and good skis. And of course it is an exercize in "measuring up numbers". Any test of a hypothesis is. You gotta look for realistic potentials of any kind, estimate them and see if the hypothesis may be valid.

4. It's not so quick to just type out. But I have tried to start that discussion. And my main question is, who are the specific athletes who were supposed to beat Dæhlie in the mid-late 90s?

 

[python]

Well the documentary kind of insinuates things about Norway, the Norwegian mindset etc. which I personally found annoying. This documentary was anything but careful and respectful.You mean sink to this level?

i did not mean the swedish documentary but the norwegian media overall attitude to the issue of doping in the nationally admired sport. the norwegian national sensitivity to what most in the country consider insinuations is perfectly understandable. but i was not referring to the svt standard. quite the opposite, i was searching for the signs of absence or presence of norway's own standard.

in brief, here's how i personally see the higher journalistic standard... while strongly against naming names w/o the strong grounds - something the svt imo wrongly did - if i was a norwegian paper editor, i would encourage the federation (in the spirit of true transparency !) to release the blood values. by 'a careful, respectful of athlete's reputations manner', i meant complete anonymity and a guarantee of legal protection for those athletes that agreed to release their personal data. additionally, i would invite and broadcast an independent scientific expert that , instead of blanket denial, would clearly explain in the media that yes, haemoglobin CAN be raised by the the illicit means, BUT it can also be raised by a myriad of other factors such as (....).

there are a lot of ways to screw up or enhance the truth. history tells us, it is usually in denying or, conversely, engaging in TRANSPARENCY.

when everything is said and done, if there was nothing, to an intelligent and honest observer, there will remain nothing.

as to the other ugly doping eras like the ddr's or fsu etc, they have failed so miserably in the historical sense exactly because they have tried to hide from transparency.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

I can certainly follow your way of reasoning, python. I would too like more transparency. If the Norwegian skiers were indeed doping, I would absolutely like to know. I would also like to see the proof if they were clean.

One of several problems with reports like the SVT programme, the Finnish programme earlier this winter and the Norwegian TV2 program from some years back, is that they have all been so obviously speculative and easy to rip apart. As a result, they serve as excuses for the Norwegian general public to dismiss the whole idea that their skiers might have been doping.

Personally I think they were clean, for reasons well presented earlier in this long thread, but I follow those who say that some sound skepticism is always in place. As it is, the recent programme has increased the Norwegians’ faith in their skiers from the nineties. A survey from this week shows that today, only 10,3 pct believe that they were doped. The amazing bit is that 15,3 pct have got increased faith in the Norwegian skiers the last few days.

http://www.vg.no/sport/ski/vm/2013/artikkel.php?artid=10101127

 

[blueskies]

i did not mean the swedish documentary but the norwegian media overall attitude to the issue of doping in the nationally admired sport. the norwegian national sensitivity to what most in the country consider insinuations is perfectly understandable. but i was not referring to the svt standard. quite the opposite, i was searching for the signs of absence or presence of norway's own standard.

in brief, here's how i personally see the higher journalistic standard... while strongly against naming names w/o the strong grounds - something the svt imo wrongly did - if i was a norwegian paper editor, i would encourage the federation (in the spirit of true transparency !) to release the blood values. by 'a careful, respectful of athlete's reputations manner', i meant complete anonymity and a guarantee of legal protection for those athletes that agreed to release their personal data. additionally, i would invite and broadcast an independent scientific expert that , instead of blanket denial, would clearly explain in the media that yes, haemoglobin CAN be raised by the the illicit means, BUT it can also be raised by a myriad of other factors such as (....).

there are a lot of ways to screw up or enhance the truth. history tells us, it is usually in denying or, conversely, engaging in TRANSPARENCY.

when everything is said and done, if there was nothing, to an intelligent and honest observer, there will remain nothing.

as to the other ugly doping eras like the ddr's or fsu etc, they have failed so miserably in the historical sense exactly because they have tried to hide from transparency.

Good post.

Then, why do you imply that the norwegian media, in fact haven't called out for a release of all blood values and more transparency, when you have been given examples of the opposite? 'Transparency' (openness) is a word of honour in the norwegian press, and something that's repeatedly sought after in all aspects of society. The rule is, if you don't have anything to hide, then don't hide it. That's why general norwegian tax lists with income are open for everyone, through a simple internet search.

There's been a lot of transparency in norwegian cross country sports, compared to other suspected doping environments. 'Anyone' can train with them (as Kalla did), the medical pool is transparent, there are no secret training camps, the press is always around, mobile altitude houses are forbidden etc. Yea, maybe they didn't give away every piece of information on the altitude training regime, but I don't view that as especially suspicious, as these are valuable business secrets. As there are several examples of in this thread, the blood values haven't been hid either. They just haven't been collected and published in a sensible matter, which there are of course good reasons for, but reasons that no longer hold any merit given the storm in the media and the public.

Many in the media haven't even asked 'politely', but rather stated: "there's only one option, release the blood values!". If there's nothing to hide, there's nothing to hide.

You have been given two examples from random googling which took me 2,4 seconds.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Sorry. You never know around these boards.



I don't know what you want to say?! He was obviously doped before Salt Lake City. 2001 was no exception but then he did not had access to NESP.

I want to say that Mühlegg was not world class because he doped. In a clean field Mühlegg would have been a contender, too and could have gotten his wins, too.

By the way, in 2001 in Lahti Mühlegg was on a similar level as in 2002. He totally trashed everyone in the 50km race. ( 3 minutes aheahd of Elofson, easy waxing conditions) In the handicap race he got second, to guess who. The clean Per Elofson.

How is that possible, i'd really want to hear a swedish guy explain me this?
If Mühlegg was drugged to the max how could Elofson beat him clean?
And if Mühlegg was not drugged in 2001 how could he destroy everyone in the 50km race? But if he was not drugged in 2001 than maybe his performance of Salt lake City was not a ppure cheat product?
There's a logical problem here.

 

[Tubeless]

1. I never by any means assume Smirnov was the only EPO doper in 1995. I make an argument here about Thunder Bay, assuming the winner has a 6% doping advantage. But I will get back to Myllylae later, in respect to natural selection. He deserves to be analyzed.

2. Altitude training does not provide a unique advantage to Norwegians. It provides an advantage for any clean athlete to legally acquire some of the performance that dopers get illigaly from blood-infusion and/or EPO.

3. I did not put any 1-2% advantage to skis for Thunder Bay. I said there is lacking a 2-3% which, if Norwegians were clean, must have been compensated by either natural selection or a combination of that and good skis. And of course it is an exercize in "measuring up numbers". Any test of a hypothesis is. You gotta look for realistic potentials of any kind, estimate them and see if the hypothesis may be valid.

4. It's not so quick to just type out. But I have tried to start that discussion. And my main question is, who are the specific athletes who were supposed to beat Dæhlie in the mid-late 90s?

Perhaps we should not pick a single race but look at the period from 1991-1992 through 1999-2000. This is the period of:

- Easy availability of EPO
- No EPO test
- No Hb limits (the Hb limits that came into effect in 1997 were still ridiculously high, 185 for men)

The skiers on the world cup overall top 3 during this period are:

- Italy: Fauner, Valbusa
- Finland: Myllyla, Isometsa
- Spain: Muehlegg
- Russia: Botvinov
- Kazakhstan: Smirnov
- Norway: Daehlie, Ulvang, Alsgaard, Hjelmeset

with Daehlie the undisputed champ with his 6 overall world cup victories. The non-Norwegians have all been linked to doping.

Conclusions:

1. You can't account for 1-1.5% off the lead for Daehli when starting to make up numbers to offset the EPO benefit. Daehli was #1.

2. It is not realistic to think that Norwegians would have had an advantage in skis over a 9-year period. The net effect is likely +/- zero.

3. As already noted, today's coaches and skiers don't consider altitude training a net benefit if the races are held at ski level. Altitude acclimatization for races up high is still required - but this is done mostly for reasons other than boosting blood values which would take a minimum of 3-4 week continuous stay up at altitudes of 2000m of more, too high for effective training.

4. The EPO benefit when there were no Hb limits was arguably higher than the the 5-6% during the 2000's with Hkr and Hb limits in place. The example from Tyler's book was from 2003, he had to pay close attention to keeping his Hkr below 50% (comparable to an Hb of 16.5 g/l).

So may I ask you to tackle this 9-year period with your arguments of altitude training, stone grinding and "natural selection" as the uniquely Norwegian advantages? To be generous, let's keep using the 6% figure so your task does not become insurmountable

 

[jsem94]

By the way, in 2001 in Lahti Mühlegg was on a similar level as in 2002. He totally trashed everyone in the 50km race. ( 3 minutes aheahd of Elofson, easy waxing conditions) In the handicap race he got second, to guess who. The clean Per Elofson.

There is a huge fallacy in this. For this to make sense, you would have to presume that Elofsson wasn't doping in the 50km and then suddenly doped to the gills to be able to conquer Mühlegg, among others, in the handicap race.

That does not make sense though, why would he dope in one race and not the other?

If we presume that Elofsson was doping in both races, you've got the exact same problem you just posed - and there would have to have been other factors playing a role here. Or perhaps we are to believe that Mühlegg only doped in one race and not the other?

 

[ToreBear]

i did not mean the swedish documentary but the norwegian media overall attitude to the issue of doping in the nationally admired sport. the norwegian national sensitivity to what most in the country consider insinuations is perfectly understandable. but i was not referring to the svt standard. quite the opposite, i was searching for the signs of absence or presence of norway's own standard.

in brief, here's how i personally see the higher journalistic standard... while strongly against naming names w/o the strong grounds - something the svt imo wrongly did - if i was a norwegian paper editor, i would encourage the federation (in the spirit of true transparency !) to release the blood values. by 'a careful, respectful of athlete's reputations manner', i meant complete anonymity and a guarantee of legal protection for those athletes that agreed to release their personal data. additionally, i would invite and broadcast an independent scientific expert that , instead of blanket denial, would clearly explain in the media that yes, haemoglobin CAN be raised by the the illicit means, BUT it can also be raised by a myriad of other factors such as (....).

there are a lot of ways to screw up or enhance the truth. history tells us, it is usually in denying or, conversely, engaging in TRANSPARENCY.

when everything is said and done, if there was nothing, to an intelligent and honest observer, there will remain nothing.

as to the other ugly doping eras like the ddr's or fsu etc, they have failed so miserably in the historical sense exactly because they have tried to hide from transparency.

There are some good responses above me.

Releasing bloodvalues. Media demanded and it was approved. They are now working on collecting the blood values. Apearently they don't/didn't have a central registry.

I'm far behind in this thread and I finally got to something posted by Dukoff:
http://www.skiaktiv.no/artikkel/381...-blodverdier-hos-norske-langrennsloepere.html

Contains links to articles:
Talks about heamaglobin(Former Norwegian and Swedish team doctors) Hemmingson was the one responsible for the Thunder Bay data etc.)
http://www.skiaktiv.no/artikkel/3816/kronikk-om-svts-dopingdokumentar.html

From a doctor at a blood bank:
http://www.skiaktiv.no/artikkel/3815/mye-feilinformasjon-i-svt-dokumentar.html

Also refutes the idea that haemoglobin reduction after altitude is complete after 48 hours.

Lawyer letter to SVT, that nicely lays out and debunks the documentary relating to the Norwegians in it:
http://www.skiaktiv.no/artikkel/3817/nsfs-advokatbrev-til-sveriges-televisjon.html

It was made in response to the first viewing of an earlier version of the documentary. The Ulvang bits were removed from the documentary. Saltins comments in that one seem totally strange.

So, what more can the media ask for than what has already been delivered?

All they and we can do is wait for the data to be released.

 

[ToreBear]

Some articles about the the introduction of blood tests by FIS, and also the IBU.

http://www.nrk.no/sport/presset-frem-blodverditesting-1.10938156
http://www.nrk.no/sport/ibu-slipper-dopingspekulasjoner-1.10939335


Apearently the IBU obtained permission from the athletes to publicize their blood values at anytime they please. IBU also has a central registry of all the blood values.

And in 1997 they posted the blood data anonimously so every one could see them. There were some who had very high values, so internal pressure between the athletes appeared to have brought the problem under control.

Use a translator and ask if anything is unclear.

 

[Bavarianrider]

There is a huge fallacy in this. For this to make sense, you would have to presume that Elofsson wasn't doping in the 50km and then suddenly doped to the gills to be able to conquer Mühlegg, among others, in the handicap race.

That does not make sense though, why would he dope in one race and not the other?

If we presume that Elofsson was doping in both races, you've got the exact same problem you just posed - and there would have to have been other factors playing a role here. Or perhaps we are to believe that Mühlegg only doped in one race and not the other?

The question is, how was a "clean" Elofson able to beat an obviously juiced Mühleggg? I really want a swedisch guy to answer that question!

 

[Discgear]

The question is, how was a "clean" Elofson able to beat an obviously juiced Mühleggg? I really want a swedisch guy to answer that question!

Why should just a Swede answer that question?

I don't think it's fair to pick out a single race in Cross Country skiing and make conclusions. In my opinion, it's not valid to make an argument based on one occasion in the glide discussion and it's not fair to make an argument who was doped or not by picking out a single race in a Champinonship. There is simply to many variables to consider.

However, I think it's fair to raise questions about supposedly clean skiers, who could throughout the 90s - the worst era of doping in endurance sports, with a miracle drug called EPO - constantly beat known dopers.

 

[Discgear]

Perhaps we should not pick a single race but look at the period from 1991-1992 through 1999-2000. This is the period of:

- Easy availability of EPO
- No EPO test
- No Hb limits (the Hb limits that came into effect in 1997 were still ridiculously high, 185 for men)

The skiers on the world cup overall top 3 during this period are:

- Italy: Fauner, Valbusa
- Finland: Myllyla, Isometsa
- Spain: Muehlegg
- Russia: Botvinov
- Kazakhstan: Smirnov
- Norway: Daehlie, Ulvang, Alsgaard, Hjelmeset

with Daehlie the undisputed champ with his 6 overall world cup victories. The non-Norwegians have all been linked to doping.

On the topic of stone grinding, it should be noted that most stone grinding machines are manufactured in Italy. Tazzari of Italy was the leading brand at the time. Norway did not invent stone grinding - and it's a stretch to claim that Italians wouldn't have been aware of the latest developments as Tazzari personnel had a keen interest in selling as many of their $20,000+ machines as possible to all national teams.

Good and valid points. If I may step into your and Dukoff's discussion, one parameter not discussed is skiing technique. It seems to be consensus that the Norwegians were late adopters of the skating technique. Alsgaard though, was a very good skate technician, especially later in his career. Dählie and Ulvang was much more about the raw power.

Despite his technical shortcomings Dählie took 8 medals in the Skate discipin, and if you also count combined pursuit, where half the distance is in skate, you can add another 5 medals in skate during the 90s.

Gold 1992 Albertville 50 km Skate
Gold 1998 i Nagano 50 km Skate
Silver 1994 i Lillehammer 30 km Skate
Gold 1991 Val di Fiemme 15 km Skate
Silver 1995 Thunder Bay 50 km Skate
Silver 1997 Trondheim 30 km Skate
Bronze 1993 Falun 50 km Skate
Bronze 1999 Ramsau 30 km SKate

Gold 1992 i Albertville 15 km combined pursuit
Gold 1992 i Albertville 15 km combined pursuit
Silver 1998 i Nagano 15 km combined pursuit
Gold 1993 Falun 25 km combined pursuit
Gold 1997 Trondheim 25 km combined pursuit

Torgny Mogren was a very good skater, as were most of the swedes, that is actually one major explanation to the Swedish success in the late 80s. American Bill Koch invented the technique but the Swedes were early adopters.

This video is very revealing both in terms of glide and technique from WC Falun 1993, the last individual medal for the Swedes in the 90s (except Ordinas bronze in 1995 which was probably fishy). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi4tscwk9P0

I’ve made time marks, it's from the same section of the race so you could look at the glide and the technique.

Mogren 2,02 (66)
De Zolt (67) 5.20
Smirnov (69) 5,55
Dählie (78) Ulvang (77) and Mühlegg (75) 8.00
The last guy in that quartet is Jan Ottosson, the worst skater in the Swedish team.

This clip is before the last lap when Dählie is still in the lead and most skiers don’t show much fatigue, so I guess it’s a quite fair example of both glide and skating technique. Enjoy!