Jeff Wigand wrote:
Coevett wrote:
Yet she destroyed the East Africans (at her best) and they still can't get near her times
All of Paula's times have been beaten by East African women except for her 2:15:25, which was run with male pacers and had a tailwind much of the way.
.He appeared on the FB leaked document in 2016 as having suspicious markers on his ABP that warranted target testing. Don't you think athletes become aware that they're being targeted and therefore tone it down? Athletes aren't that dumb - they know when the heat is on. Being tested frequently is one clue. Lol. And toned-down doping equals toned-downed performances...no surprises there.
rekrunner wrote:
Crickets chirp at night -- and since it was night, I was sleeping.
If you really ever understood some of what I was saying, I don't find "proof by example" very strong evidence of anything except for that individual example. It's not because we can add one more high profile example to a handful of other examples, that logical fallacies suddenly become valid arguments. Someone astutely said that the plural of anecdote is not proof.
I never denied that the faith in EPO is very strong, and can even reach the top. We can see by the number of athletes who point up to the sky, and make the cross sign, and other symbolic gestures, that even elite athletes make faith an important part of their lives.
It's unfortunate that a new high profile name is added to the list of doping positives. Either Kiprop, or someone around him, had faith in EPO (assuming Kiprop intentionally took EPO for performance), and it's also looking bad for the Rosa's, who, as the brojos put it, are either incompetent (for not managing their athletes with enough oversight), or complicit.
It's a real shame that they obviously did not read my "Closer look at performances in the EPO era" thread, as the 1500m is the one "distance" event which showed comparatively small progress in the EPO era, measured by both quantity and quality. Only 13 athletes ran faster than my pre-EPO threshold in the two decades of 1990-2009. Since the passing of the ABP, when you would expect EPO performances to decline, in only 9 years, the rate more than doubled, as 13 more have run faster, interestingly only at Monaco.
Two important questions for me:
1) When did he start? His last "fast" performance was three years ago in 2015. If we assume he doped in 2015 and before, and continued doping, then we are left with an awkward explanation for why his performances were so bad since, including Rio. If he only doped after, it would fit a pattern of an athlete having a couple years of disappointing performances, tempted to take something to help restore his previous capability. Maybe Rio was the turning point.
Another rojo scribe wrote:
rojo wrote:
Let me end this session with a hypothetical. Right before I hopped in bed last night, I thought to myself, ‘If one of the men’s track distance gold medallists from Beijing tests positive in 2016, which one would bother you the most/least?’ So either Rudisha, Kiprop, Kemboi, or Farah goes down. Which positive would bother you the most/least? I don’t know why I came up with that depressing thought, but when I think about track nowadays and who might win and lose, I often think (particularly on the women’s side), ‘Is there a potential doper that could really upset the event?’ Trying to be objective, I thought, ‘Well what if one of them is dirty?’
For me, obviously the most shocking/upsetting would be Kiprop or Rudisha, [i]and I think it’s Kiprop[/u]. I might as well just hand in my fan card forever. He just looks like he has a genetic advantage like he’s a prototype that should have been on the cover of The Sports Gene. Those super skinny long legs remind me a swimmer with huge arms. But then again if Rudisha went down, then we lose the best moment of the 2012 Games.
Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not suggesting I’ve ever heard anything suggesting either is on drugs – it just was a stimulating, albeit depressing, intellectual exercise for me.
A positive by Farah or Kemboi wouldn’t destroy my world view of the sport. ...
https://www.letsrun.com/news/20...n-compete/
Tell It Like It Is wrote:
Don't start again with your nonsense! You can't whine this time that none of the very at the top runners in the history of the sport hasn't benefited from rocket fuel. ☝️ 5th fastest ever (3:26.69/2015) and only one of three runners to ever go sub-3:27! Just a coincidence that he happens to be associated with rocket fuel?
Kiprop = high responder to EPO.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Yes the 80’s were very bad for sprinting, but the light being shone now is like a pencil torch in the inky ocean depths.
Wigand I remember you as an idealist/utopian/moron, depending on perspective. If you knew what was really going on, you would hurl. These busted athletes are part of a larger system, which used to go all the way to the top of the track world.
Watching Pharmalita get interviewed about her coaching ethos made my skin crawl, how she selects athletes based on whether or not they will get with the program. Such a system is why it is often the intellectually dimmest of athletes that use and get busted.
The Italians are an absolute farce, I wrote about it to Canova years ago. They are some of the central players, and work to keep the money distributed to the right people.
rekrunner wrote:
Then I'll refer you to any of my previous posts where I explain that "benefitted from rocket fuel" and "high responder to EPO" are demonstrations of your faith.
Tell It Like It Is wrote:
Don't start again with your nonsense! You can't whine this time that none of the very at the top runners in the history of the sport hasn't benefited from rocket fuel. ☝️ 5th fastest ever (3:26.69/2015) and only one of three runners to ever go sub-3:27! Just a coincidence that he happens to be associated with rocket fuel?
Kiprop = high responder to EPO.
Everyone's looking for an edge wrote:
Better quit providing facts & statistics...rekrunner is likely to stop by and contradict. ?
casual obsever wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:
The majority are doing it the right way. It's gotten a lot tougher to be at the top and get away with cheating.
A) The Tübingen/Harvard study says that 44% (likely underestimated, according to the authors) were drug cheats at the World Championships in 2011.
B) Seppelt showed that medal winners were more likely to cheat than the also-rans.
A+B: the majority of winners dope.
casual obsever wrote:
Well, that's all part of Seppelt's 2014/2015 stories.
Some reports directly say so, and you can do the math yourself from the data.
Overall 1 of 7 had suspicious blood values, and 1/3 of the medal winners.
So, medal winners are more than twice as suspicious.
Coevett wrote:
There's some real crazies on this board, but Rekrunner might just be the nuttiest.
Bad Wigins wrote:
TrackCoach wrote:
Btw, that Rio final was a perfect setup for Kiprop, having the fastest 400 and 800 PR in the field and notwithstanding a 3:26x 1500m PR. Kiprop only had to run hard for 600m; it's crazy how he tied up in the end.
He didn't tie up, or at least not unintentionally.
As I was saying through that whole olympics, east Africa was collectively taking a dive. Nike is corrupt enough to do that to get American medals. Possibly the sub-2 thing was payment from Kipchoge for sparing him.
yyy wrote:
How does one even know that the concept "good responder" makes sense???? Are there studies showing significant
differences in athletes who are taking EPO???
yyy wrote:
How does one even know that the concept "good responder" makes sense???? Are there studies showing significant
differences in athletes who are taking EPO???
gathernomoss wrote:
The plot thickens : http://www.runblogrun.com/2018...-test.html
I might be naive but it appears there are reasons to doubt the process surrounding this positive test...
rekrunner wrote:
That would be a real tragedy, if the irregularly prematurely leaked result was really the result of local Kenyan corruption and extortion and a tampered sample. If so, there is no way to undo the permanent damage to his reputation.
gathernomoss wrote:
The plot thickens : http://www.runblogrun.com/2018...-test.html
I might be naive but it appears there are reasons to doubt the process surrounding this positive test...