Does anyone out there actually believe Haile G and Bekele didn't dope?

KB was doped at Pre when he recorded that 26:25 from 2008. He also has the next best time of 26:43 (no one has exceeded since 2011) which falls entirely inline with his 2:03:03, which does speak of the decreased doping. Isn't it interesting there's been little to zero pressure on the records since 2008 where KB ran that 26:25?

Gotta bee wrote:

Bekele's best times post "EPO era"

5000m: 12:50.18

10000m:26:25.97

Marathon:2:03:03

Jagged Star wrote:

KB was doped at Pre when he recorded that 26:25 from 2008. He also has the next best time of 26:43 (no one has exceeded since 2011) which falls entirely inline with his 2:03:03, which does speak of the decreased doping. Isn't it interesting there's been little to zero pressure on the records since 2008 where KB ran that 26:25?

Gotta bee wrote:

Bekele's best times post "EPO era"

5000m: 12:50.18

10000m:26:25.97

Marathon:2:03:03

I don't think it's that interesting that there is little pressure on the records.

In the history of the event, only 6 people have run within 20 seconds of KB. There have certainly been people who could run 26:30-35 (like Mo) but they haven't chased times:

Mo's PRs come BEFORE he was World Champ or Olympic Champ. And Rupp's 10k came in May on American soil.

rekrunner wrote:

The question is *NOT* just the mere existence of a few forum members defending her, but, do the defenders outnumber the attackers by a factor of nearly 3 to 1.

That may be your question, but it was neither mine nor did I make such a claim.

Instead of getting all trolly on me again, just read what I wrote for a change. Hint: I mentioned an obvious bias, and proposed that the results would be different (note: different, not inversed) in forums of other countries. Nothing about 3 : 1 or 1 : 3 or whatever.

Apparently you have no argument against that, so just come up with your typical straw man.

What doesn't make sense is that this generation of African track runners are not able to challenge the times of their predecessors.

I would have expected a 2nd wave of track talent inspired by the 90s stars but it never happened.

I believe that the top africans of that period were on EPO the same as their rivals.

Who seriously believes that Hermens sent out a completely clean Haile or KB to compete against

the doped-up morrocans.

There is no "may be" -- that is MY question. I asked you to clarify if you were suggesting the "obvious bias" would be positive, because you didn't actually say, and the absolute positivity in the polling results don't seem to be in line with the absolute negativity in this forum. Once again, rather than addressing this seemingly inverse contradiction, you resort to calling me a troll.In an English speaking forum, while the defenders are primarily "English speaking", so are the attackers. Paula's largest source of attacks seems to come from the unpatriotic British press, looking for a scandal. In English speaking contexts, it's not obvious that the net bias is positive.You did not actually use the word "different" before (maybe you should also read what you actually wrote), but "different" is still ambiguous.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The question is *NOT* just the mere existence of a few forum members defending her, but, do the defenders outnumber the attackers by a factor of nearly 3 to 1.

That may be your question, but it was neither mine nor did I make such a claim.

Instead of getting all trolly on me again, just read what I wrote for a change. Hint: I mentioned an obvious bias, and proposed that the results would be different (note: different, not inversed) in forums of other countries. Nothing about 3 : 1 or 1 : 3 or whatever.

Apparently you have no argument against that, so just come up with your typical straw man.

Sad how hard you try to defend Bekele. Genuinely wonder how you sleep at night.

These posters forgot about, ignored, or simply lacked a basic sense of, statistics.My arguments were that the "unusual off-scores" and any other alleged "physiological" anomalies, before 2009, might not even be real.Before consulting a physician or a post doctoral physiologist, to interpret numbers, you need a statistics or mathematics expert to ensure their physiological analysis has a good chance of making sense.I supported my arguments with many links to papers, and other authoritative sources, outside of the IAAF. Ashenden's papers alone explain the many pitfalls that needed to be solved at process level before the ABP was statistically viable.I'm also pretty sure my explanations and rebuttals were detailed -- probably too detailed for the audience here.By the way, no one posting in this forum identified themselves as an "expert" in the field of anti-doping.Ross Tucker would have more insight than most, and he said "Maybe... Maybe not... Need more data."More than two years after the first Seppelt documentary, the undisputed and undisputable facts are:1) Pre-2009 data is not of sufficiently consistent quality to reliably perform an ABP-type analysis or comparisons and draw robust conclusions.2) Assuming sufficient blood data reliability, purely for the sake of argument, Paula's "suspicious" values were taken under conditions known to artificially INCREASE the off-scores. Reasonable estimates of typical errors, and adjustments for altitude, would easily bring these values comfortably under sea-level suspicion.These are not just legal or minor technicalities, but undermines EVERY amateur conclusion that fails to address, account for, estimate or bound these process errors. A statistics expert, or any competent scientist, would know this, and have to address sources of errors, potential magnitudes, probabilities and expected errors, in any analysis. Ashenden and Parisotto would know this too. But they "attacked" the IAAF, and not individual athletes. This limited purpose of arguing that the IAAF could have done more, is not undermined, by even a large percentage of pre-2009 false positives.I'm not just claiming I was bullied or insulted -- I don't really expect better -- but that "detractors" at letsrun forum outnumbered the "defenders" - a one to one vote of posters contributing to Paula threads would not yield a 72% clean/28% dirty result. So what is the real bias in the English speaking letsrun forums?

justicer wrote:

Posters pointed out how your arguments for the defence of Radcliffe in terms of the series of unusual off scores did not make sense physiologically and neither did the explanations/excuses given by the IAAF. Many of the posters were experienced in the field (physicians, post doctoral physiologists etc) and they gave detailed posts about how the explanations given did not add up. You offered no detailed explanation, or statistical analysis to suggest the contrary beyond claiming the IAAF said there was nothiing wrong therefore there was nothing wrong.

It is not really justified that you now try to claim that you were only being bullied or insulted on those threads.

Jagged Star wrote:

KB was doped at Pre when he recorded that 26:25 from 2008. He also has the next best time of 26:43 (no one has exceeded since 2011) which falls entirely inline with his 2:03:03, which does speak of the decreased doping. Isn't it interesting there's been little to zero pressure on the records since 2008 where KB ran that 26:25?

Gotta bee wrote:

Bekele's best times post "EPO era"

5000m: 12:50.18

10000m:26:25.97

Marathon:2:03:03

so if you assume his 2:03:03 was done not doped an aligned with his 26:43 in 2011(which was done shortly after returning from injury, don't you think a younger, healthier Bekele could have done a time faster than that?

I sleep very well, after coaching athletes for more than 8 hours per day, because I know that ALL the athletes training with me have the values of loyalty and have clean minds.

I sleep very well because what I try to explain to all the idiots obsessed by Kenyan doping in this forum is absolutely not only what I believe, but is the truth.

I sleep very well because, fortunately, I'm not so unlucky to meet somebody stupid as you, who creates conspiracies around the results of all the best athletes in the world, without understanding the different talent of the best compared with who is not at the same level.

And, finally, I sleep very well because I act every day for explaining Kenyan athletes how stupid is who tries to fill the gap with athletes at the moment stronger than them using blood doping, fact that has the following effects :

a) to fill the pocket of not honest doctors anf pharmacists of money, reducing the money in the pocket of the doped athlete

b) to reduce the possibility to improve their performances, because they don't believe in training and at the end their results are worse than what they can achieve with proper training only

c) to be banned, in the case they go to be tested in some competition (since at that level, in any Country, they can be tested OOC, because we speak of athletes who are not in top 50 Kenyans in any event).

For your information, we had in Mosoriot last Friday a symposium where I was very aggressive against doping, explaining something that the athletes must know (and many physiologists don't know). This symposium was organized by a group of Canadian sponsors, the speakers were some professor from Kenyatta University, some Canadian doctor, one Kenyan doctor responsible for IAAF of the antidoping, and myself.

All the coaches in the meeting (more than 50) asked to have other clinics, where to explain because training cant be replaced, or aided, by any type of doping if you are ALWAYS in altitude.

But this is too much difficult for your small brain.

Tucker had Paula as a 7 on his suspicion scale from 0 (innocent) to 10 (doper).

He also wrote:

"Could a 2.8 g/dL increase in [Hb], from 12 g/dL to 14.8, occur as a result of significant dehydration? The study above took 2.5 to 3 hours, she ran for 67:35. She says it was 30 C, the historical reports for the day suggest 24C. So we don’t know, but it’s not impossible, and that’s the point."

(Note he assumed the wrong [Hb], which was later confirmed as 15.6 g/dL, making the increase even more unlikely!)

and in conclusion:

"What would help to test each of Radcliffe’s explanations (altitude, illness, hydration) is the specific values (Hb & Ret%), not just an off-score, and to do so over a longer period.

Each of her explanations is a hypothesis (“Dehydration after running in the heat has increased my Hb concentration and triggered a high off score”, for instance. Or “A period of altitude training has elevated my Hb and suppressed Ret production to produce a high Off-score”).

These “hypotheses” are entirely testable, and if they pass the test, believable, and on top of it all, she’d be playing open cards, which is worth a great deal in the climate of mistrust.

I still feel that her explanations are POSSIBLE, and complete data would make them PLAUSIBLE, and that equals trust. But the half-truths & opaqueness make it less plausible, at least to me (opinion). It’s the ACTION, not necessarily the data, that speaks loudest."

Note that in meantime, the hypothesis “A period of altitude training has elevated my Hb and suppressed Ret production to produce a high Off-score” was proven to be wrong by her post-altitude off scores of 82 and 92 in 2003 and 2005.

"undisputed and undisputable facts"? LOL

1) They were used as corroborating evidence by the IAAF.

2) I disagree a) with what you call "reasonable estimates", and b) with the adjustments for altitude, because Paula's post-altitude off-scores in 2003 and 2005 were 82 and 92, respectively.

Ummm, couldn't that also be understood to mean that there is perhaps a slight racial bias among self-identified non-whites in favor of the Moroccan?

Definition please. wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

So you clearly believe El Guerrouj was not clean...

This is a common belief shared among self-identified whites, where only 42.53% believe he was clean, and 57.47% do not.

Among those who did not self-identify as white, 55.58% believe he was clean.

Among self-identified blacks, 64.94% believe he was clean, and among self-identified Asians, 59.26% believe he was clean, and self-identified Hispanics, 55.13% believe he was clean.

Looks like public opinion is ambiguous, and there is perhaps a slight racial bias among self-identified whites against the Moroccan.

Ummm, couldn't that also be understood to mean that there is perhaps a slight racial bias among self-identified non-whites in favor of the Moroccan?

Of course not! Only white people can be racially biased.

As other posters on this thread have noted it is the refusal of the IAAF and the athlete in question to provide their data that support their explanations to explain the unusual blood values that makes them look guilty. Your arguments did nothing to prove innocence either. If someone is so worried about proving themselves to be innocent to the public then why on earth would they not provide these data?

What you wrote is just flat out wrong:

The IAAF WERE using pre 2009 blood values to ban athletes for blood manipulation (why on earth would they be doing that if you cannot make robust conclusions from the data??):

Quotes from the article:

"The IAAF banned Kokkinariou for four years for blood doping - a sanction upheld by the court. In rendering its verdict in November 2012, the CAS noted that the IAAF used also blood test results from before 2009 as evidence. A trio of IAAF experts found that Kokkinariou’s blood values between 2006 and 2009 revealed the "use of a banned substance and/or banned methods". The CAS accepted their argument."

"As they proved with the case with Miss Kokkinariou, data base results as far back as 2006 are reliable indications of blood manipulation," Ashenden said. "For the IAAF to claim just three years after winning their case that the data base can’t be relied upon is just jaw-dropping hypocrisy."

"The IAAF didn't respond to ARD's request for clarification on this matter. In the past the body has repeatedly states that "blood samples taken before the introduction of the biological passport programme could not be used as evidence of doping".

PR has a massive credibility problem since the scandal broke

One example.

She advocated release of blood data and claimed she would have no problem with same.When the story broke she changed tack and claimed the data was complicated and the IAAF should adjudicate behind closed doors.

Fast forward and she then advocates lie detector tests for athletes which is equally open to interpretation and doubt as the release of blood data .

Total nonsense and lacking in all credibility

BUMP

All these lengthy quotes conclude "I still feel that her explanations are POSSIBLE, and complete data would make them PLAUSIBLE, But the half-truths & opaqueness make it less plausible ..."In other words, "Maybe... Maybe not... Need more data."Ross Tucker, someone with more insight than you, needs more data before making up his mind.Did 82 and 92 actually prove altitude wrong? Or would a recent stay at altitude prove 82 and 92 are wrong, confirming what is actually not in dispute, that pre-2009 data is not reliable, for many reasons documented in peer-reviewed papers.1) The fact remains undisputed -- the IAAF's use as "corroborative evidence" is not an "ABP type analysis and comparison".2) The fact remains undisputed -- "Paula's "suspicious" values were taken under conditions known to artificially INCREASE the off-scores". The estimates I called reasonable don't come from me, but I took them from doctors and scientists. You disagree but you are actually not an expert. And no ABP expert agrees with you -- but a SportsMail reporter does.

casual obsever wrote:

Tucker had Paula as a 7 on his suspicion scale from 0 (innocent) to 10 (doper).

He also wrote:

...

I still feel that her explanations are POSSIBLE, and complete data would make them PLAUSIBLE, and that equals trust.

...

Note that in meantime, the hypothesis “A period of altitude training has elevated my Hb and suppressed Ret production to produce a high Off-score” was proven to be wrong by her post-altitude off scores of 82 and 92 in 2003 and 2005.

...

"undisputed and undisputable facts"? LOL

1) They were used as corroborating evidence by the IAAF.

2) I disagree a) with what you call "reasonable estimates", and b) with the adjustments for altitude, because Paula's post-altitude off-scores in 2003 and 2005 were 82 and 92, respectively.

Perhaps.

rekrunner wrote:

...

Looks like public opinion is ambiguous, and there is perhaps a slight racial bias among self-identified whites against the Moroccan.

Definition please. wrote:

Ummm, couldn't that also be understood to mean that there is perhaps a slight racial bias among self-identified non-whites in favor of the Moroccan?

rekrunner wrote:

All these lengthy quotes conclude "I still feel that her explanations are POSSIBLE, and complete data would make them PLAUSIBLE, But the half-truths & opaqueness make it less plausible ..."

In other words, "Possible but not plausible." And again, later is was shown that her increase was even worse than estimated by Tucker, making an innocent scenario even less plausible than estimated by Tucker.

rekrunner wrote:

The estimates I called reasonable don't come from me, but I took them from doctors and scientists. You disagree but you are actually not an expert. And no ABP expert agrees with you

Newsflash 1: I am both a doctor and a scientist.

Newsflash 2: The first expert who judged Paula's 2012 ABP violation - yes the one you try to ignore as again demonstrated above - agrees with me.

Newsflash 3: Tucker had Paula as a 7 on his suspicion scale from 0 (innocent) to 10 (doper).

You have her as a 0, I view her as a 10, so Tucker's opinion is a lot closer to mine than to yours.

(Ok, you knew all of these "newsflashes" before, which once more proves your trolling. 5/10, I admit.)

Note that "makes them look guilty", to the public, is not the same thing as "makes them guilty".The IAAF actually did not refuse to provide the data. They gave a complete set of data to the WADA IC, through 2015. UKAD and WADA also have the complete set of data. It would be inappropriate for the IAAF to do anything other than refuse to provide the blood data to the public.Paula actually did refuse to release her data, as is her right. One reason to refuse is that she was getting skewered by the British press. Ross Tucker felt that was a public relations mistake. While certainly refusing to make the data public gives more fuel for the doubters, who is sure she can only be hiding proof of her guilt, I'm not convinced releasing all the data would have helped her -- the doubters would find some way to nitpick the data, cherry-picking and molding the data to support their predetermined conclusions, or complain that there are other blood values she is still hiding that would finally prove them right.In the case of Kokkinariou, the "robust conclusion" from the pre-2009 data was not from an ABP-type analysis or comparison involving the pre-2009 data. The "sportsschau" characterisation is not quite correct. In the case of Kokkinariou, reliable post-2009 data was used to establish an anti-doping violation using an ABP-type analysis, resulting in a two year ban starting July 2009. The unreliable pre-2009 data, was not used to establish a violation, but was used on appeal, to argue that Kokkinarious was not eligible for a 2-year ban, on the strength of the similarity to reliable post-2009 data. Without the reliable post-2009 data, it would not be possible to draw any robust conclusion on the pre-2009 data alone, that could withstand appeal. Note that despite using pre-2009 blood values, none of the pre-2009 performances were disqualified, nor could they be.