Pretty sad but at least they're not banning an actual WR holder.
So he got careless but not to the point of getting popped with actual EPO in his sample, unlike say Kiprop, Sumgong, Jeptoo, etc...
Pretty sad but at least they're not banning an actual WR holder.
So he got careless but not to the point of getting popped with actual EPO in his sample, unlike say Kiprop, Sumgong, Jeptoo, etc...
Wow, 7 tests with Hb above 18, and none got flagged by the software??
Wow. Here's what the linked Decision says about being flagged by the software:
25. The First Expert Panel Joint Opinion stated:
"In the automated analysis by the adaptive model, which determines
whether fluctuations in the biomarkers of the Athlete Biological
Passport are within the expected individual reference ranges for an
athlete or not, the profile was flagged with a high haemoglobin
concentration (Hb) and a high OFFscore in Sample 1, both values
exceeding the respective upper 99.99% specificity level."
doping watcher wrote:
Yet the IAAF used pre 2009 data as evidence for establishing length of sanctions:
Yes, as secondary evidence. Good point.
doping watcher wrote:
Yes this happens so often like with Lance Armstrong in the 2009 Tour de France. A shame the UCI threw his explanations under the bus ...
Yes, it's a shame.
LoneStarXC wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Quite interesting. Aside from the fact that it took them half a year to provisionally ban this cheat, did you notice the plots in the decision?
Since he kept his Hb above 18 (!) all the time, only his first was flagged by the generous software. Just imagine: if he wouldn't have opened the door to that tester, he would still be doping and winning. That's how stupid this system is.
+1
Kiptum was caught because got careless. Since the ABP has an accepted range wide so wide that you could drive a truck through it, it’s easy to see how so many dopers can slip through the cracks.
I think of the ABP as a supplemental tool that catches athletes that might otherwise go free without it.
Even if it fails to catch athletes, it serves as a deterrent, encouraging some athletes who would dope, to reduce the quantity of doping to what could be replicated and explained by altitude training.
rekrunner wrote:
LoneStarXC wrote:
+1
Kiptum was caught because got careless. Since the ABP has an accepted range wide so wide that you could drive a truck through it, it’s easy to see how so many dopers can slip through the cracks.
I think of the ABP as a supplemental tool that catches athletes that might otherwise go free without it.
Even if it fails to catch athletes, it serves as a deterrent, encouraging some athletes who would dope, to reduce the quantity of doping to what could be replicated and explained by altitude training.
+1
Yes, sample 1, not samples 2 - 8. Did you look at the plots? Very telling.
I guess you mean samples 2-7. I did. I'm familiar with how the adaptive model works. Samples 2-7 with the higher limits don't matter because Sample 1 was already flagged. There is no way to get to these higher limits without first being flagged, except to have the Hb and Off-Scores within 99%. Without sample 1, then sample 2 would have been flagged against initial limits. Without samples 1 and 2, then sample 3 would have been flagged. Without samples 1 and 2 and 3, it becomes a violation. I don't get this criticism of the ABP, at least in this case of Kiptum, as if it should be judged by its weaknesses rather than the improvement it brings compared to without it. In the case of Kiptum, the ABP flagged the very first sample. It worked as designed. Without the ABP, he would not have been caught.
casual obsever wrote:
Yes, sample 1, not samples 2 - 8. Did you look at the plots? Very telling.
casual obsever wrote:
Subway Surfers wrote:
How stupid of him was it to actually agree to be tested? Meanwhile Coleman is world champion
+1
Rookie mistake, what can you do.
But Hgb > 20, Hct well above 60%: so much for the theory that the blood gets to viscous to run fast!
Yes another theory perpetuated by a certain Italian coach is, like Humpty-Dumpty, smashed into smithereens and unable to be resuscitated. I seem to recall that this same Italian coach claimed that his star miler had a Hct of 52. I wonder how he got that. Though he also claimed that as his athletes got fitter their Hct fell, thus his case for epo not working. By this logic Kiptum was a real lazy slob. I wonder if this solicits a response? He reads these forums.
doping watcher wrote:
Couldn't he use the Paula Radliffe excu.... sorry explanations of "dehydration due to hot weather in Kenya", "antibiotics", "training at altitude", "badly calibrated lab equipment" etc?
The IAAF could also produce some sort of whitewash report to save Kiptum and protect the sport from the cheats.
I agree these Kenyans need to study western excuses. Kiptum should have blown our minds by declaring he had a three-way with Jeptoo and Sumgong.
Subway Surfers wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Rookie mistake, what can you do.
But Hgb > 20, Hct well above 60%: so much for the theory that the blood gets to viscous to run fast!
Yes another theory perpetuated by a certain Italian coach is, like Humpty-Dumpty, smashed into smithereens and unable to be resuscitated. I seem to recall that this same Italian coach claimed that his star miler had a Hct of 52. I wonder how he got that. Though he also claimed that as his athletes got fitter their Hct fell, thus his case for epo not working. By this logic Kiptum was a real lazy slob. I wonder if this solicits a response? He reads these forums.
Did you know that Humpty-Dumpty was actually a cannon?
The theory is that above a certain viscosity (not specified), any additional benefit from increased RBCs and oxygen delivery, would be counter-acted by an increased viscosity making it increasingly difficult to get the RBCs to the muscles where the oxygen is needed. It's an optimization question.
Kiptum's first sample was 20.3 g/dl on 13 October, when he took second in a 10K cross-country meet, 30+ seconds behind the winner, Rhonex Kipruto.
By the end of the month, Hgb had dropped by 1.4 g/dl to 18.9 g/dl, 3 days after his world record time in Valencia.
This is too little information to say what role viscosity played, but he ran a world record time with less viscosity, and lost a 10K cross-country meet by more than 30 seconds, while in world record shape.
+2
He cheat
LoneStarXC wrote:
Kiptum was caught because got careless. Since the ABP has an accepted range wide so wide that you could drive a truck through it, it’s easy to see how so many dopers can slip through the cracks.
I wonder what happened before October 2018 with his ABP.
In 2016, he won the Madrid and the Casablanca Half Marathon, and a 59:36 in Copenhagen.
In 2017, he ran a 2:05 in Amsterdam.
In 2018, he ran a 2:06 in Daegu in April and a 59:09 in Copenhagen in September.
His 2:05 put him on 6th place among Kenyans in 2017, and his 59:36 on 11th in 2016. The 59:09 was good enough for 6th place among Kenyans at that point in 2018.
Yet that decision pdf sounds and looks as if his ABP started in Obtober 2018, meaning that only the 59:09 got him into ADAMS. Can that really be?
Yet the so-called sample 1 (from 10-13-2018) had an allowed HGB range from 12 - 17 g/dl, which seems to be generic, not Kiptum specific. Right after that the range jumps to 17 - 20 g/dl, implying that sample 1 was really the first ever. And I don't see any mention of his prior ABP data.
Finally, on December 6th, the IAAF declared his world record as ratified. At that point, they already had five samples from him all with HGB > 18 g/dl. Oh boy, that is just sad. Thankfully Kamworor came to the rescue.
But actually, Kamworor's world record hasn't been ratified yet, right? If so, the IAAF (AIU) just disqualified the reigning half marathon world record holder, giving the record back to Tadese. All the headlines like "Former world half marathon record-holder Abraham Kiptum" would be wrong.
Oh boy.
casual obsever wrote:
LoneStarXC wrote:
Kiptum was caught because got careless. Since the ABP has an accepted range wide so wide that you could drive a truck through it, it’s easy to see how so many dopers can slip through the cracks.
I wonder what happened before October 2018 with his ABP.
In 2016, he won the Madrid and the Casablanca Half Marathon, and a 59:36 in Copenhagen.
In 2017, he ran a 2:05 in Amsterdam.
In 2018, he ran a 2:06 in Daegu in April and a 59:09 in Copenhagen in September.
His 2:05 put him on 6th place among Kenyans in 2017, and his 59:36 on 11th in 2016. The 59:09 was good enough for 6th place among Kenyans at that point in 2018.
Yet that decision pdf sounds and looks as if his ABP started in Obtober 2018, meaning that only the 59:09 got him into ADAMS. Can that really be?
Yet the so-called sample 1 (from 10-13-2018) had an allowed HGB range from 12 - 17 g/dl, which seems to be generic, not Kiptum specific. Right after that the range jumps to 17 - 20 g/dl, implying that sample 1 was really the first ever. And I don't see any mention of his prior ABP data.
Finally, on December 6th, the IAAF declared his world record as ratified. At that point, they already had five samples from him all with HGB > 18 g/dl. Oh boy, that is just sad. Thankfully Kamworor came to the rescue.
But actually, Kamworor's world record hasn't been ratified yet, right? If so, the IAAF (AIU) just disqualified the reigning half marathon world record holder, giving the record back to Tadese. All the headlines like "Former world half marathon record-holder Abraham Kiptum" would be wrong.
Oh boy.
Yeah, the document says he had 7 samples taken, the first one on October 13, 2018. In which case, he got away without even being tested for a while. And with the crazy high HGB (20.3) and off-score (148.3) in his first sample, they just adjusted his range. Those scores should have raised a lot of red flags, though.
rekrunner wrote:
Are you suggesting the ABP didn't work out of generosity, or it worked by luck? I imagine if he evaded the first sample, by "not opening the door", the second sample would have been flagged due to high Hgb. Or the third, forth, fifth, sixth and seventh. All of the samples, except the 5th would have been flagged by Off-Score too. Not opening the door three times would also be an automatic violation.
The ABP isn't perfect, but it's smarter than you suggest.
According to the report, the Adaptive Model flagged the very first point with both Hgb and Off-Score exceeding 99.99% specificity. According to Zorzoli 2011, exceeding 99% for one parameter is enough to trigger expert review.
It looks like it not only worked, but the first sample was a red flag that triggered an intense targeting resulting in 7 samples collected within 2 1/2 months. That seems like a lot from someone that was previously a "no-name".
To make it more sensitive, the Adaptive Model can flag abnormal samples in several ways. The Model can flag violations of the thresholds not only from various parameters in a single sample (indicated by the red lines), but also from a statistical assessment of these parameters over the complete sequence (Zorzoli 2011).
The ABP worked extremely well in detecting blood doping with an altitude native in a situation where anti-doping countermeasures were apparently used very effectively in avoiding a positive drug test for an ESA. Not only did sample #1 trigger a "red flag," but it independently could have been used for an ATPF/ADRV.
As noted in the Irini Kokkinariou CAS hearing : "The Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP) may reveal doping on a single or several occasion(s). Therefore, longitudinal hematological profile need not contain multiple irregular figures in order to be used effectively." (CAS 2012/A/2773).
The Tribunal noted that sample #1 (20.3/0.83/148.30) would be accepted as an ADRV.
And the Expert Panel noted: "The probability of a male athlete recording an OFFscore of 145, even in the worst case at altitude, is less than 1 in 10,000 (i.e., 99.99% specificity)"
Sample #1, alone, is sufficient evidence for ADRV.
So, Kiptum had two samples with very high Hgb (sample #1/20.3 & sample #6/18.7), the two lowest RET% in the profile (0.83 & 0.48) and the two highest Off-scores (148.30 & 145.40) that easily met the 99.99% specificity level with sample #1 taken 2 weeks before Valencia and sample #6 taken 2 two days after Abu Dhabi - classic cases of off-phase use of an ESA.
rekrunner wrote:
Subway Surfers wrote:
Yes another theory perpetuated by a certain Italian coach is, like Humpty-Dumpty, smashed into smithereens and unable to be resuscitated. I seem to recall that this same Italian coach claimed that his star miler had a Hct of 52. I wonder how he got that. Though he also claimed that as his athletes got fitter their Hct fell, thus his case for epo not working. By this logic Kiptum was a real lazy slob. I wonder if this solicits a response? He reads these forums.
Did you know that Humpty-Dumpty was actually a cannon?
The theory is that above a certain viscosity (not specified), any additional benefit from increased RBCs and oxygen delivery, would be counter-acted by an increased viscosity making it increasingly difficult to get the RBCs to the muscles where the oxygen is needed. It's an optimization question.
Kiptum's first sample was 20.3 g/dl on 13 October, when he took second in a 10K cross-country meet, 30+ seconds behind the winner, Rhonex Kipruto.
By the end of the month, Hgb had dropped by 1.4 g/dl to 18.9 g/dl, 3 days after his world record time in Valencia.
This is too little information to say what role viscosity played, but he ran a world record time with less viscosity, and lost a 10K cross-country meet by more than 30 seconds, while in world record shape.
Conclusion: Kiptum would have been the first to run a Sub 2 marathon if he had had not used EPO which slowed his legs and blood down and effectively weighed his body down with extra iron which is a heavy metal. He should have listened to Canova!!
This was addressed in paragraphs 85-88, starting with "85. The Tribunal is hesitant to accept that Sample 1 in the Athlete's ABP comprised an Atypical Passport Finding ("ATPF"), ... because the upper and lower limits ... were merely based on population norms." Similarly I suspect the high Off-scores (148 and 145) are only 99.99% specificity against population norms. "casual obsever" has a point about the manipulability (?) of adaptive limits, and we can imagine scenarios where athletes could game the system undetected by the software, by keeping that adaptation always within the 99% thresholds, for all parameters. They probably cannot stray too far from population limits, and would need to manage their values year-round.
Passport Era Doping wrote:
The ABP worked extremely well in detecting blood doping with an altitude native in a situation where anti-doping countermeasures were apparently used very effectively in avoiding a positive drug test for an ESA. Not only did sample #1 trigger a "red flag," but it independently could have been used for an ATPF/ADRV.
As noted in the Irini Kokkinariou CAS hearing : "The Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP) may reveal doping on a single or several occasion(s). Therefore, longitudinal hematological profile need not contain multiple irregular figures in order to be used effectively." (CAS 2012/A/2773).
The Tribunal noted that sample #1 (20.3/0.83/148.30) would be accepted as an ADRV.
And the Expert Panel noted: "The probability of a male athlete recording an OFFscore of 145, even in the worst case at altitude, is less than 1 in 10,000 (i.e., 99.99% specificity)"
Sample #1, alone, is sufficient evidence for ADRV.
So, Kiptum had two samples with very high Hgb (sample #1/20.3 & sample #6/18.7), the two lowest RET% in the profile (0.83 & 0.48) and the two highest Off-scores (148.30 & 145.40) that easily met the 99.99% specificity level with sample #1 taken 2 weeks before Valencia and sample #6 taken 2 two days after Abu Dhabi - classic cases of off-phase use of an ESA.
There is too little data to be conclusive. We need to look no further than Zersenay Tadese (2:08:46 PB) to see that half-marathon success does not always translate to marathon success. Or we could see Kiptum's best marathon time was 2:05:26, placing it well outside the top 100. And finally, everyone should listen to Canova's recommendations to not resort to doping.
comparing like with like wrote:
Conclusion: Kiptum would have been the first to run a Sub 2 marathon if he had had not used EPO which slowed his legs and blood down and effectively weighed his body down with extra iron which is a heavy metal. He should have listened to Canova!!