OMG, I totally wish Paula Radcliffe gets caught/outted.

All that I claimed happens to be true, your logic is defective, and my nationality and residence is apropos of nothing. I wasn't bashing USA so much as highlighting the hypocrisy, of calling for a ban on the nation on the basis of a few cheats who were caught.

m!ndweak wrote:

its interesting you wrote that like you did rek....you claim you are an "expat" but you constantly defend paula and the UK...and this part again exposes you

if you claim you are an american living in europe why didnt you write

Is it safe to say "the" USA is as bad as Russia, and the whole country should just be banned?

or

Is it safe to say "we are" as bad as Russia, and the whole country should just be banned?

no one in the US says USA, and you as bashing the US like el K....interesting

Sorry I didn't respond right away -- I was out living my life. Funny how you whipped off three posts in response.

m!ndweak wrote:

lolz 4 posts in a row...rek dude take a break, do some IT work or whatever it is you claim you do.....sheesh you have no life bro

Don't confuse a ban with a no-start rule. In cross-country skiing, she would have had a 5-day timeout in March 2012. There are not many examples of anyone dominating the marathon for 4 years, and staying at the top. The marathon takes its toll on the body.

Subway Surfers wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Other facts: she did not pass any "retrospective testing". She also was no outlier prior to 2002 and post 2005. In these four magical years though, after turning 28, she ran her 5000 m and 10000 m PRs (remember Munich 2002?) and two marathon world records. After she got target-tested for the 2nd time (in 2005), and the EPO test became more reliable, she couldn't even run a 2:22 anymore (2006 - 2012).

Right - the marathon is her specialty. But only until 2005. Also, which other elite runner ran a 5000 m PR while in marathon training at age 30?

Also if she was a cyclist or a cross-country skier, she would've been banned pre ABP.

Isn't it amazing how people produce amazing performances out of the blue, then they get tested more regularly and they go backwards, just when there are so many financial incentives to keep performing as they had been.

Nice try. I admitted that it was an assumption being questioned.

Subway Surfers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

EPO is a highly effective PED for elite runners in the marathon.

Finally you admit it, hallelujah!

But you first have to answer the question if EPO (or any combination of drugs) is a PED for the marathon. The question of whether EPO (or any drug) is effective for elite women in the marathon is central to your argument based on the clear definition of PEDs. The alternate answer to your question of how is that all PEDs, in what ever synergistic combination or quantity, for the marathon are not more effective than legal high altitude training, and other factors lead to Paula's fast performance, that all came together on the same day: good weather, favorable tailwind, aggressive pacing from the start, 2 pacemakers to 30K and 1 to the finish, etc. The ARRS estimated that the women as a group gained a 1:45 advantage from race conditions alone that day. Carl Lewis' best performance is #106 of all time, similar to #115 Shelby Houlihan in the 5000m. Paula is in a higher class than Shelby Houlihan.

How? wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

This question only makes sense if you've already concluded the assumption being questioned, that EPO is a highly effective PED for elite runners in the marathon.

To answer that question, you must address all the causes of elite performance.

The answer may be different for female marathoners and male sprinters.

PEDs are (by definition) Performance-Enhancing Drugs of ANY form. This is not a debate about whether EPO is effective.

So not only has Miss Radcliffe matched doped elite athletes, but she has OVERTAKEN them and smashed them by MINUTES!!! Just IMAGINE Carl Lewis not only matching drug-filled Ben Johnson, but SMASHING him by the same margin (as Johnson had actually beaten him). Impossible!

Can't imagine a clean athlete of the pedigree of Carl Lewis every managing that, and Radcliffe isn't in the same class as Carl Lewis.

Then you must still be a fan because she never failed the Biological Passport. Everyone is susceptible to elevated blood measures after intense exercise, such as a 70 minute half-marathon (heat or no heat) -- that is why a 2-hour rule is mandatory to bring blood levels back to normal.

lkjlkj wrote:

I was a fan of Radcliffe until she failed the Biological Passport test and tried to blame the findings on dehydration. Like she's the only one that was susceptible to dehydration.

I always theoried that she dropped out of Athens because she had to get off the juice and lost all of her confidence. I think she blamed that one on Advil.

Total headcase. ZERO Olympic Gold.

Nope. I don't believe a bust of one athlete is connected anyone else's performances.

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

Rato. wrote:

Think I heard someone say that about Kiprop once.

Good Ole Rekrunner?

Wait till you find out what the final nail in the coffin was for Lance.

rekrunner wrote:

Nope. I don't believe a bust of one athlete is connected anyone else's performances.

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

Good Ole Rekrunner?

rekrunner wrote:

It is not safe. Not even close.

are they really different? wrote:

Isn't it safe to say now that the Kenyans are doping just as much as the Russians given all the positive tests they keep throwing out these days? Looking at Team Sky I would say that the Brits, in cycling at least, are implying that it is impossible to win unless you are taking high doses of asthma medications ...

So you imply that considerably more Russian distance runners have tested positive for PEDs than Kenyan distance runners over the last, say 7 years? Would love to see your um "data" to support that one ...

Data can be found, for example, in WADA reports. The 2016 report showed significantly more Russians then Kenyans and Ethiopians. The nation of Russia was not banned for the high number of doping busts, but for their extortion/bribery attempts, for its national support of a comprehensive doping program, and for swapping and tampering with samples.

are they really different? wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

It is not safe. Not even close.

So you imply that considerably more Russian distance runners have tested positive for PEDs than Kenyan distance runners over the last, say 7 years? Would love to see your um "data" to support that one ...

Source? You already know everything I say is supported by the same study you referenced. In fact, you did link to the Guardian, and the words I quoted did come from the Guardian article that you linked. So yes, you did too. Besides the journalists you malign who relayed these words, we do have words in writing, written by "the team" that say "at least 29%-34%", and then later, point us to a table where, "31.4%" is the value that solves the problem of the significant bias of "fast responders". In this table, 31.4 +/- one Standard Error of estimate is 28.9%-33.9%. "even assuming conservatively" and "would" does not mean "unlikely", but builds the foundation for saying "at least". Not only is "unlikely" wrong, a huge positive bias was observed with likelihood of 100%, comparing the top 30% of "fast responders" to the remaining 70%. This study tells us that such an effect for these kinds of surveys is well known and proven by other studies. The study mentions several times, both in the main text, and in the supporting appendices, why eliminating "fast responders" is mandatory to avoid the "serious problem" created by "fast responders". The source of "Principal Investigator" is the Appendix 1 of the study. I would say co-author is authoritative enough to explain why 43.6% leads us to a big question, the answer to which you don't seem to like. If you find no contradiction, why do you get so upset when "at least 29%", words that come from the "horses mouth", are not wrong? With respect to "obvious take home message" the authors also told us where to find their main findings: "The major findings from our primary analysis of the UQM results are summarized in Table 4." 43.6% is the primarily unanalyzed UQM result, and figures like 31.4% is one of the "major findings of their primary analysis".

Peerless Carl Lewis didn't need favorable "anything" to show his class, OVER and OVER AGAIN!

But when drug cheats that come out of the woodwork to beat the greats, they resort to all kinds of excuses to explain their domination, especially domination over known drug cheats.

The great Carl Lewis was prepared for another 100m Olympic success and ran a great race. Ben Johnson loaded up on the dope and demonstrated what it does for an athlete.

Even NINE-TIME OLYMPIC GOLD medallist Carl Lewis was out of frame on the finish. If Lewis was the greatest 100m runner athlete of his time, why could he not even match Johnson at the tape??

Yet we are expected to believe Radcliffe (who is no Carl Lewis) can emaciate the best of the DOPED elites and crush them in the manner that Johnson vanquished the elites of his time.

Could this happen? Of course not!

PREPOSTEROUS!!!

rekrunner wrote:

Then you must still be a fan because she never failed the Biological Passport.

Everyone is susceptible to elevated blood measures after intense exercise, such as a 70 minute half-marathon (heat or no heat) -- that is why a 2-hour rule is mandatory to bring blood levels back to normal.

But she did fail it in 2012. Only the experts couldn't agree on sentencing her. Right on the peak of the IAAF corruption.

And yes, Hct may go up a few percent right after intense exercise, but that effect is almost gone after 1 hour - you said she was tested after 90 minutes.

Furthermore that would have no effect on her ret-%, but that decreased by 20% in sync with what you'd expect from a blood transfusion.

Lol - no - why do you lie so much? Read the abstract!

No, because you pretended that those words came from the authors, while in reality they came from a journalist.

I am not upset. I merely think your constant obfuscations need to be corrected so no one gets fooled. The sport is not as clean as you pretend. Only 30%, laughable.

You always have to push too far. It is wrong to say 29% when it is "at least 30-31%". Note how you routinely leave out the "at least", and alternate between 29% and 30%?

It is utterly stupid from you to claim that 43.6% is only the raw result and overestimated. Yet you continue to do so.

The authors specifically informed you that yes, it is the raw result, but also, that the conclusion is after all their sensitivity analyses:

"we were unlikely to have overestimated the true prevalence of doping".

That in turn makes, say, 40% unlikely, and 30% highly unlikely.

Here in context:

Now would be a good time for you to apologize for your nonsense, and stop trolling with this. But knowing you, you will double down again with the same lies, right?

rekrunner wrote:

But you first have to answer the question if EPO (or any combination of drugs) is a PED for the marathon.

The question of whether EPO (or any drug) is effective for elite women in the marathon is central to your argument based on the clear definition of PEDs.

I think this probably ends all discussion. If you are incapable of seeing or understanding how the effects of EPO or any other PED benefits endurance events, then I don't know what to tell you. For the most obvious and lowest hanging fruit, look at Lance Armstrong and what PED's did for him. Are you going to claim next that cycling is not an endurance event? Or less hard than a marathon?

You're being silly once again.

Shobukhiva's 2:18:20 (5th fastest all-time if it stood) would be evidence of doping success. The IAAF flushed her 3 Chicago titles & London title for ABP hematological anomalies which included her fastest times and the very fast 2:18:20 @ Chicago 2011. Look at her IAAF file & Wikipedia, and her PB (undoped) is now listed as 2:24:24 @ London 2009. So, she improved ~4% over 2 yrs --- slightly higher than what some of the scientists are saying (~3.5%). With her 153 off-score when she ran the 2:18 that's probably red line for her. One anti-doping expert noted in her CAS hearing that her Hgb was so high it was deemed a medical emergency (polythycemia!). So, with a topped out clean time of 2:24, doping isn't going to give Shobukhova an 8%, 9%, 10%, etc., boost to challenge Paula's WR. I don't know why you think every doper should be a potential WR holder when all elites are not created equal and there's interindividual variation. Again, she went full throttle with that astronomically high off-score and recorded a ~4% improvement, slightly higher than estimations made by some anti-doping experts.

So, with some of these confirmed dopers in the women's marathon we can use as an example (Shobukhova, Jeptoo, Sumgong, Abitova, Yulamanova, etc.), they're not going to replicate Paula's WR, whether clean or doped...if their clean base is too low to begin with.

On "Ndereba's 2:18:47 from 2001:" How do we know if that time is clean or doped? If it's doped, then her clean base could have been that of Shobukhova's. If, OTOH, Ndereba's time is clean, then I would suggest her PB is far superior to Shobukhova's clean time (2:24:24) and therefore she couldn't beat it by much with doping. Again, all elites are not created equal.

And on what happen with the "doping landscape in 2017 when 6 more women ran faster than Ndereba's time." Well...you forgot to mention that all six are Kenyans & Ethiopians. And given the current doping climate going on overthere in Kenyan and the fact that the "Guardian" did a story not too long ago where an Ethiopian "high-profile" female elite easily bought EPO OTC at a local pharmacy located near their national stadium, I'd be skeptical of those times. ?

Don't be silly again. Lol. Look at the list of Olympic medals in athletics stripped due to doping and see the number of Russians...it's uncanny!

She did not fail it in 2012 either. And she didn't blame this one on dehydration. I did not say she was tested at 90 minutes, but that 90 minutes is less than 2 hours, making such claims red-herrings. Can you proved an external source for "that effect is almost gone after 1 hour"? I don't know what to expect before 2 hours, also for RET%, assuming both measurements are accurate (which we cannot). I do know that Ashenden wrote a paper on expecting large RET% variance, before 2007 and 2009 procedure changes.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Then you must still be a fan because she never failed the Biological Passport.

Everyone is susceptible to elevated blood measures after intense exercise, such as a 70 minute half-marathon (heat or no heat) -- that is why a 2-hour rule is mandatory to bring blood levels back to normal.

But she did fail it in 2012. Only the experts couldn't agree on sentencing her. Right on the peak of the IAAF corruption.

And yes, Hct may go up a few percent right after intense exercise, but that effect is almost gone after 1 hour - you said she was tested after 90 minutes.

Furthermore that would have no effect on her ret-%, but that decreased by 20% in sync with what you'd expect from a blood transfusion.

The example of male sprinters has nothing to do with female marathoners. If you want a sprinting comparison, the best comparison is Bolt. Carl Lewis would compare more to Ingrid Kristiansen.

I only brought up the Guardian because you linked to it. If you are unwilling to stand by your supporting links, which give a message you don't agree with, and ask and answer big questions you don't like, it's curious that you linked to it in the first place.

Better than the abstract, I read the sensitivity analysis referenced in the abstract.

I did not pretend the those words came from the author, but explicitly attributed one quote to Andrea Petróczi, and the other quote to the Guardian's Nicola Davis.

However, the quote from Nicola Davis is an accurate reflection of the contents of the study, as to the answer to the "big question" asked by Andrea Petróczi,.

Funny, that's exactly why I respond to you -- you only tell a part of the story.

I generally make an extra effort to say "at least" each time. It is you who stripped it and replaced it with "only".

I only say 30% when quoting the Guardian, and also when we are talking about how many of the "fast responders" we need to eliminate.

I quoted directly from the supporting Appendix of the study, under a section called "Basic Results".

This makes sense, when the revised estimate is the one from the major finding of their primary analysis.

Read the sensitivity analysis.

I will continue to stick by the words of the study authors, giving priority to the more detailed Appendices.