He is just mad that he tested positive despite paying off the DCOs and is going to bring them down with him. I'm sure it wasn't the first time he has paid them. No matter what dopers say nothing was ever the first time.
Either they messed up switching the sample or they thought they were only getting paid to tell him in advance that he would be tested.
only fools think Kiprop is clean. Here in kenya we know for many years that he is one with the needle just like canova clown
sleeeper wrote:
On the one hand, I have no problem believing DCO is corrupt in Kenya. It is easy for me to believe that DCO expect payment in return for advance notification of tests and may expect other bribes along the way. I would not be surprised if Kiprop's story is true.
On the other, why would Kiprop give an indeterminate amount of money to Mburu "in good faith thinking they may have some need known to them" without discussing or agreeing how much to give him? "He did not specify how much they needed" seems fishy.
Too bad we'll never know.
The scenario that doesn't make sense is they say give us some (unspecified) sum of money, he gives them some money then they just go away without demurring and shaft him. If the money wasn't sufficient they would clearly have said so.
Are Americans racist?
Kiprop to me is very fishy because of Rosa’s, but most alleged dopers do not put out statements like this one. I hope the best for Asrop and most importantly that the truth comes out.
Wow. Maybe he is innocent. What a well-written, detailed response...
Hopingforthebesthere wrote:
Kiprop to me is very fishy because of Rosa’s, but most alleged dopers do not put out statements like this one. I hope the best for Asrop and most importantly that the truth comes out.
bkrunner wrote:
Having read the statement, I find Kiprop's story somewhat believable (see my post above). Not saying I believe him, but the story is believable, if that makes sense.
However, for the cynical observer, there is another way to interpret this story (and the exchange of money Kiprop referenced): The collectors come to the house. Kiprop pees in the cup and tells the collectors, "Guys, I'm screwed. I've got EPO in my system and I need you to help me out. Can I wire you some money?" The collectors promise to fix things for him. He wires the money. But the collectors made a promise they couldn't keep, because it's out of their hands after the cup is sealed.
Again, I have no idea what actually happened, but both scenarios seem plausible.
This seems the more likely explanation. My guess is that the "remittance" was actually routine, but his time it didn't "work", so he is trying to pin it on the system by showing corruption (he has a record of the "one time" payment as "evidence", he can probably erase/cover previous transactions), but if anything it has been corruption which until now has favored him with no positives. So basically a desperate diversion from his epo use. Very sad but very much a reality in the situation we are talking about in 2018 Kenya.
Kind of reminds me of this fabulous denial:
Show me others. He made some bold statements that can be backed up with evidence if needed and can be instantly shut down if that proof doesn’t show.
Hopingforthebesthere wrote:
but most alleged dopers do not put out statements like this one
What planet do you live on? They do this ALL THE TIME.
Kiprop is telling the truth or he’s been a dirty doper his whole life. You can only pick one.
Jerry Dial wrote:
Has anyone provided a valid explanation as to why Kiprop would be taking EPO 7 months before competition.
And why is the result being leaked instead of being officially announced?
And why are they leaking the info 7 months after the test was taken. Does it usually take this long?
He is an athlete. He would maintain his routines just like anyone elite athlete would keep running, maintaining a healthy diet, taking iron, massage/stretching, etc. If EPO was part of his routine, then it was routine still in November, with less risk (of in-competition detection).
The results process is slow. Here are two posts I wrote on another forum with regards to cycling, but same procedure:
I looked it up in the past, but the general timeline is pretty structured. As for B-Samples, after the athlete is notified, they have a 7-day window to either: accept ADRV, choose to have it tested, or choose have it tested with themselves or a representative as witness. To be clear, unless the athlete makes a choice and follows through, it defaults to acceptance of the ADRV; for example, saying on the 9th day that they want to witness a test but need 4 days to fly to the lab would default to ADRV (I'm 90% sure).
So, assuming the result is in, the result and possible sanction is confidentially given to the athlete. When I looked it up, I could only find UKAD and WADA procedures. I assume USADA is similar, but let's pretend that for now, it's the same:
The athlete then has a few days to request a hearing. An expedited hearing must occur within 14 days, a regular hearing presumably more. All NADO's must wait at least 20 days after this hearing to release result publicly.
So, the International Standards for testing is ambiguous, and The code is not specific. I found more specific guidelines from a documentof proposed ammendments and questions from NADOs. UKAD. NADOs can have their own guidelines for notification of athletes USADA has nothing clear on their website except cute yellow and red buttons for info about urine and blood tests blood. UKADrules were a little more specific.
"Reporting of “A” Sample results should occur within ten (10) working days of receipt of the Sample."
The “B” Sample analysis should occur as soon as possible and should take place no later than seven (7) working days starting the first working day following request of the Testing Authority
, unless ..."
National ADAs have to report adverse results within 20 days of the hearing determining the positive result. (paraphrased from IST)
Heres a timeline for an athlete taking every available day to delay:
Day 1: Sample Collection
(__ days for travel)
Day 2/3?: Receipt of A sample
Day 12: Test results occur
Day __(15)__: Athlete notified of Adverse finding
UKAD says notification is in writing ASAP. 2-3 days for snail mail?.*
Athlete has 10 days from the receipt of charge to request a hearing
Notice of Charge defines a date and time within 7 days of athlete's (anticipated) receipt of charge for B sample analysis.
Athlete responds y/n to request to be present in the B sample analysis.
Day 22: B sample Analysis, athlete/rep amy or may not be present
If B sample confirms A, then a provisional suspension is handed out confidentially to the related parties.
Day 25: Athlete requests hearing:
-expedited hearings occur within 14 days of the provisional suspension
- regular hearings' timeline is unclear, but presumably at least 14 days
Day 39 (at least): expedited (if opted) hearing occurs. regular hearing occurs later
Day 59: latest edge of the window to report results: it sounds like the NADO stays confidential up to this point unless the related parties release info, but could release its own info outside of this window.
So, 59 working days, and probably longer if the athlete really wanted to stretch it out. I'm guessing JTL is in a purgatory between the request for hearing, a (confidential?) provisional suspension, and a confidential appeal. Ullissi ****** by not asking for a hearing, but probably opted for and waited for B sample analysis.
Jerry Dial wrote:
Has anyone provided a valid explanation as to why Kiprop would be taking EPO 7 months before competition.
This thread discusses several reasons a doper would take EPO during the off season ranging from keeping blood chemistry stable so as to fool the ABP to allowing more intense training:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8796483If the urine bottle does not fit, you must acquit.
A few thoughts,
1) These guys called and warned him of the test. There is no mention that this was the first time or that it was any surprise. We are left to assume this is always the way it goes. There's really no verification he was warned though.
2) They asked for money (smart to transfer electronically so it is verifiable). No surprise from Kiprop? No questions about what it's for? Just says "ok i'll go get some" and assume it's "personal needs"? Again, we are left to assume this is always the way it goes, and Kiprop knew it was a bribe.
3) He implies that his bribe wasn't enough so his sample was tainted. The doesn't make sense. If they know he is willing to bribe them and it wasn't enough, they would simply ask for more. Second, he insinuated they tainted it while he went to get the money! There isn't a reasonable motive for them to taint the sample
4) It was a urine sample not a blood sample. If the "experts" on these boards are to be believed, that is the easiest type of test to beat (doesn't show up within 24hrs?). So he would have either taken a very large dose or taken a dose after he was warned of the test (if he was warned.)
1 2 3 green wrote:
A few thoughts,
1) These guys called and warned him of the test. There is no mention that this was the first time or that it was any surprise. We are left to assume this is always the way it goes. There's really no verification he was warned though.
2) They asked for money (smart to transfer electronically so it is verifiable). No surprise from Kiprop? No questions about what it's for? Just says "ok i'll go get some" and assume it's "personal needs"? Again, we are left to assume this is always the way it goes, and Kiprop knew it was a bribe.
3) He implies that his bribe wasn't enough so his sample was tainted. The doesn't make sense. If they know he is willing to bribe them and it wasn't enough, they would simply ask for more. Second, he insinuated they tainted it while he went to get the money! There isn't a reasonable motive for them to taint the sample
4) It was a urine sample not a blood sample. If the "experts" on these boards are to be believed, that is the easiest type of test to beat (doesn't show up within 24hrs?). So he would have either taken a very large dose or taken a dose after he was warned of the test (if he was warned.)
Doesn't really add up, does it?
Paying bungs like this is quite a common occurrence in many parts of the world (east Europe etc) so the story is plausible. That doesn't make it true of course. I'd 60% favour Kiprop's version so far.
The only way it all makes sense is if Kiprop used to bribe in order to be notified of the tests within 24 hours, but the dose he took was so large that it didn't vanish in 24 hours.
1 2 3 green wrote:
A few thoughts,
1) These guys called and warned him of the test. There is no mention that this was the first time or that it was any surprise. We are left to assume this is always the way it goes. There's really no verification he was warned though.
2) They asked for money (smart to transfer electronically so it is verifiable). No surprise from Kiprop? No questions about what it's for? Just says "ok i'll go get some" and assume it's "personal needs"? Again, we are left to assume this is always the way it goes, and Kiprop knew it was a bribe.
3) He implies that his bribe wasn't enough so his sample was tainted. The doesn't make sense. If they know he is willing to bribe them and it wasn't enough, they would simply ask for more. Second, he insinuated they tainted it while he went to get the money! There isn't a reasonable motive for them to taint the sample
4) It was a urine sample not a blood sample. If the "experts" on these boards are to be believed, that is the easiest type of test to beat (doesn't show up within 24hrs?). So he would have either taken a very large dose or taken a dose after he was warned of the test (if he was warned.)
I addressed this in the other thread. Can a mod merge these two conversations?