Rita Jeptoo tests positive

You haven't got a scrap of evidence they're clean. This is not a court, we're not sending people to jail, there's no reason to apply "innocent until proven guilty". What on earth would be sufficient to convince you? A positive test for everyone?

But what to expect from someone who thinks there was nothing special at Boston this year?

agip wrote:

holy cow apparently it is EPO. This kills me.

https://my.news.yahoo.com/top-kenyan-marathon-star-jeptoo-tests-positive-epo-163609399--spt.html

in part

Athletics Kenya's vice president, Jackson Tuwei, said the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) had revealed a positive 'A' sample test for the blood-boosting drug Erythropoietin (EPO).

"After we received the letter from the IAAF, we summoned Rita Jeptoo for a meeting in Nairobi. She denied having taken any drugs," he told AFP.

"We cannot condemn her. She has a right to contest it" and request that the 'B' sample also be tested, he added

Chip Litton wrote:

J.R. wrote:

Shobukhova was banned, not from a drug test, but because of the stupid biological passport.

Of course people's blood values will fluctuate, which is entirely normal to have happen.

You don't understand how the biological passport works.

J.R. does not understand a lot of things.

Of course, in this case, WMM has to act to delay giving the award until the matter is resolved.

grox wrote:

You haven't got a scrap of evidence they're clean. This is not a court, we're not sending people to jail, there's no reason to apply "innocent until proven guilty". What on earth would be sufficient to convince you? A positive test for everyone?

But what to expect from someone who thinks there was nothing special at Boston this year?

What on earth would be sufficient to convince you they're all dirty? The fact that they run "fast"?

Clerk wrote:

Pandaheadsfreakmeout wrote:

So right now she's as guilty as Bernard Lagat, which technically isn't guilty. Agree that it is BS when a result leaks before the B sample confirms the result.

Not true. Lagat's B sample was tested, Jeptoo's has not. Right now, Jeptoo has an adverse finding. If no action is taken by her party in the given window, it will be a sanction. Given that the test was a while ago, this may soon be the case if the B sample still has not been tested.

Read the timeline and its documents before making false statements

Someone might have pointed this out, but the test was in September (late?), but I doubt that the test results were available until recently. Since this thread is really long already, and most of it is noise or trolling, I am not going to wade through it. Whoever Clerk is might be paying systematic attention and if so, you might address the issue of when the test results came back.

jon secada wrote:

grox wrote:

You haven't got a scrap of evidence they're clean. This is not a court, we're not sending people to jail, there's no reason to apply "innocent until proven guilty". What on earth would be sufficient to convince you? A positive test for everyone?

But what to expect from someone who thinks there was nothing special at Boston this year?

What on earth would be sufficient to convince you they're all dirty? The fact that they run "fast"?

The facts that:

* there is money and glory at stake;

* some products do enhance performance;

* testing is far from perfect (`glow time', substances with no test, masking).

From that point on, someone will cheat. Then, to compete with him, others will have to cheat too (or give up). It follows that it is very likely that everyone at the top is dirty.

You might not like the idea (I certainly don't), it still is very reasonable.

And some people here seem to consider doping is an atrocious thing to do. But compare with, say, how many people `fix' things on their CV. We're just not very honest.

[/quote]

But what if Buzunesh Deba was also taking PED's? You could have a Lance Armstrong scenario here where most of the top competitors are using PED's and it was still the best athlete who won the competition as the playing field was "even". As well as punishing the athletes, the coaches and managers of these athletes also need to be interrogated and punished as necessary.[/quote]

Please stop with the everyone is doing it narrative, especially with Lance. It DOES NOT create a level playing field, no matter what Lance and team expect you to believe - it does not make doping "fair".

Everyone responds to PEDs differently, and generally PEDs like EPO have greater effect on those whose values are lower. So Lance potentially gets a BIGGER boost than his competition. In addition, Lance potentially had access to better more experimental drugs than his competition. And then there are those who decide not to use. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the level playing field?

Damn...

grox wrote:

jon secada wrote:

What on earth would be sufficient to convince you they're all dirty? The fact that they run "fast"?

The facts that:

* there is money and glory at stake;

* some products do enhance performance;

* testing is far from perfect (`glow time', substances with no test, masking).

From that point on, someone will cheat. Then, to compete with him, others will have to cheat too (or give up). It follows that it is very likely that everyone at the top is dirty.

You might not like the idea (I certainly don't), it still is very reasonable.

And some people here seem to consider doping is an atrocious thing to do. But compare with, say, how many people `fix' things on their CV. We're just not very honest.

I'll ask you too - women get caught, throwers get caught, sprinters get caught, walkers get caught - why is it that elite male distance runners don't get caught. Much.

agip wrote:

Athletics Kenya's vice president, Jackson Tuwei, said the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) had revealed a positive 'A' sample test for the blood-boosting drug Erythropoietin (EPO).

All this time we thought it was a naturally occurring substance.

What is next, banning water.

Oh first there has to be a drug that simulates water.

Then we can ban anyone who drinks water, especially those pesky Kenyans, Russians, Chinese (and anyone else who runs faster than us).

grox wrote:

The facts that:

* there is money and glory at stake;

* some products do enhance performance;

* testing is far from perfect (`glow time', substances with no test, masking).

From that point on, someone will cheat. Then, to compete with him, others will have to cheat too (or give up). It follows that it is very likely that everyone at the top is dirty.

You might not like the idea (I certainly don't), it still is very reasonable.

No, those facts actually do not lead to a reasonable belief that everyone is doping. Just because there is money involved and it is possible to cheat does not equate to everyone cheating.

grox wrote:

You haven't got a scrap of evidence they're clean. This is not a court, we're not sending people to jail, there's no reason to apply "innocent until proven guilty".

Exactly.

Let's just ban anyone we don't like.

Men's Mar. WR =26:11 on performance tables?

Nobody has gotten close to 26:17 WR from 2005.

laughing so hard at the people thinking other elites are surely clean

enforcer wrote:

But what if Buzunesh Deba was also taking PED's? You could have a Lance Armstrong scenario here where most of the top competitors are using PED's and it was still the best athlete who won the competition as the playing field was "even". l

You stup1d fuc-k1ng a5.5h0le of a revisionist, he was the best doping responder and not the best athlete.

J.R. wrote:

assorted nonsense

J.R. wrote:

grox wrote:

You haven't got a scrap of evidence they're clean. This is not a court, we're not sending people to jail, there's no reason to apply "innocent until proven guilty".

Exactly.

Let's just ban anyone we don't like.

We can only hope you're pretending not to understand.

agip wrote:

I'll ask you too - women get caught, throwers get caught, sprinters get caught, walkers get caught - why is it that elite male distance runners don't get caught. Much.

I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as this. However, if there's been a spate of positives in power events recently, that could very well be related to the much better tests they say they now have for steroids (much longer detection window for stanozolol and turinabol, if I remember correctly).

On the other hand, someone being caught for EPO today is a real surprise. I thought they knew how to avoid detection (microdosing?) or stopped using it altogether.

grox wrote:

agip wrote:

I'll ask you too - women get caught, throwers get caught, sprinters get caught, walkers get caught - why is it that elite male distance runners don't get caught. Much.

I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as this. However, if there's been a spate of positives in power events recently, that could very well be related to the much better tests they say they now have for steroids (much longer detection window for stanozolol and turinabol, if I remember correctly).

On the other hand, someone being caught for EPO today is a real surprise. I thought they knew how to avoid detection (microdosing?) or stopped using it altogether.

26 EPO positive athletes are serving sanctions right now. It is a fairly small number, but material.

To argue against my point - is there something about EPO that makes it harder to detect in men?

for ex, I'm sure artificially high levels of testosterone are more easily detected in women than men. Is there some equivalent for EPO among men?