Let's Get To The Bottom Of This wrote:
Tough question: Is Gary serious or just toying with everyone?
Toying. He is not that dumb.
Let's Get To The Bottom Of This wrote:
Tough question: Is Gary serious or just toying with everyone?
Toying. He is not that dumb.
Interesting choice of word: "Imagine"
Doped to the Max wrote:
Glad you posted that...I've been searching for it and thought I had it bookmarked in my smartphone. That is significant and what I would characterize as a game changer.
Imagine chopping off "30 seconds" in the 5k with difference being between the gold medal and last place at London. But of course rekrunner will predictably say it's only an estimation and educated guess. And coming from experts? I don't think rekrunner gives any creditability to anti-doping experts. He sure didn't waste any time with his skepticism of Dr. Schmaucher.
I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you. Attempted murder is still considered a crime, whether you failed or succeeded. WADA makes the rules, which include the appropriate punishments for breaking them. These legal questions are not relevant to a performance discussion. I'm not interested in the legal discussion.
Doped to the Max wrote:
No...it's not the end of the story: Then why are medals, titles & times annulled on an athlete's ABP profile where hematological anomalies are detected during the competition period where you say elevated Hgb has no effect on performance? If you say elevated Hgb has no effect on performance and therefore no unfair advantage for a blood doper, then why is anyone getting sanction in the first place? If it's a safety issue, then the experts can roundtable and determine what would be an upper safe limit for Hgb levels (similar to cycling's old 50% Hct rule). No need to strip medals & titles and ruin careers if hematological anomalies have no bearing on performance?...right rekrunner?
ABP data is used to determine whether or not a performance should be annulled even in cases where there's evidence of admission to doping by the athlete. Have you researched the Poistogova case? Poistogova and her 800m teammate Savinova admitted in the ARD-recordings of doping during the summer of 2012 in prep for London (EPO & oxandrolone). Neither tested positive in the pre & post-race controls. Savinova takes gold & Poistogova takes bronze. Savinova is banned for 4 yrs, Poistagova gets 2 yrs.
Savinova ABP data from London shows strong evidence of doping with an elevated Hgb (16.1/48.3 Hct) & elevated RET% (1.30). Savinova's CAS hearing is available with further details (Schmaucher is one of the reviewing IAAF experts). Poistogova's ABP data from London (McLaren report) shows "normal." Savinova has her gold stripped while Poistogova retains her bronze, and is later elevated to silver! No steroid module was in use yet - so no data on androgen use. Poistagova does have her 2015 EIC silver medal stripped (maybe they saw some anomalies on her ABP data from that race but nothing is mentioned in McLaren).
So, both admit to doping for London. Both medal. One has hematological anomalies in her ABP while the other has a "normal" appearing ABP. One loses her medal while the other skates. If elevated Hgb indicative of doping isn't the most determining factor in the decision to annul a performance...then I don't know what is.
rekrunner wrote:
So please, let's decouple any discussion about sanctioning and annulling, from a discussion about performance benefits.
Well then...here's another one from Schmaucher ref the Kristina Ugarova CAS hearing from 2016 (paragraph 103):
103. In addition, importantly, the Sole Arbitrator notes that Sample 2 was taken on the eve of an important competition (i.e. the European Championship in Helsinki), whereas Sample 3, 4 and 5 were not taken in temporal vicinity to a competition. As testified by Dr. Schumacher, high HGB values enhance sporting performance. The Sole Arbitrator therefore finds that the coincidence of the fact that Sample 2 contained high HGB values, whereas Sample 3, 4 and 5 contained no such high levels, makes it indeed highly likely that the abnormal blood values in Sample 2 are to be explained by the use of prohibited substances or prohibited methods."
It looks like "Doped to the Max" was the one who wrote "as the result of", not the IAAF or the scientists. The IAAF and scientists always say wishy-washy words like "can improve as much as".
casual obsever wrote:
Speaking of Jeptoo:
Doped to the Max wrote:
Hmmm ?....."targeted at major competitions" and "achieved great success." Sounds like to me the IAAF is showing an great performance success as the result of the use of an ESA.
Hmmm - but rekrunner stated:
rekrunner wrote:
Kiprop, Sumgong, Jeptoo and so on, did not act on knowledge, but on belief. You may be right though -- Kiprop and others may well know, better than you or me, if they ran slower than their best while they were doping.
Poor rek. Not only do the scientists not agree with him, now his beloved and oh so trustworthy IAAF led by the impeccable Lord agrees with the scientists about the benefits of blood doping, based on experimental observations. Lolz.
rekrunner wrote:
Interesting choice of word: "Imagine"
Doped to the Max wrote:
Glad you posted that...I've been searching for it and thought I had it bookmarked in my smartphone. That is significant and what I would characterize as a game changer.
Imagine chopping off "30 seconds" in the 5k with difference being between the gold medal and last place at London. But of course rekrunner will predictably say it's only an estimation and educated guess. And coming from experts? I don't think rekrunner gives any creditability to anti-doping experts. He sure didn't waste any time with his skepticism of Dr. Schmaucher.
A Professor of Language? See we forgot that you don't believe epo works, but have also had to confess, due to the overwhelming evidence, that there was an epo era coming out of East Africa, North Africa, Spain and Deutschland Dieter.
I'll accept you were arguing that as many as 56.4% of 2011 World Championship athletes were self-admittedly clean. I didn't argue the number (this time), but supplemented more facts, that it includes sprinters and fielders and women, unrelated to the male distance events Renato was talking about. It's always apples and orange comparisons which generate exaggerated errors to make a point that seemingly cannot be made without this deception. - 1 out of 3 medals are not medalists. - 1 out of 3 medals is itself inflated, due to women ending up on the podium as a result of steroids, and due to including the "dirty" race walking events. - 1 out of 7 includes non-endurance athletes less likely to blood dope. While you can cite Schumacher and other experts, let's always keep in mind that they are anti-doping experts, and not top performance experts. They are unlikely to have observed these up to 4% improvements with the runners producing the times that Renato gave, or the times in the men's final in London 2012. In the other thread, you wrote "order 2 to 4%" and then linked to a source that said "up to 3%", suggesting that peer-reviewed sources backed you up, again artificially generating an exaggerated error. I didn't "go into troll mode" but correctly pointed out this instance of yet another exaggerated misrepresentation. If doping is as bad and obvious as you say, why the constant need to exaggerate at every opportunity?
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
So when Renato wrote "Really is it possible to think that ALL THOSE ATHLETES WERE DOPED ?", he was talking about not less than 100% of athletes above these "clean thresholds" calculated at 4% below the current records, arguing that "if only one of them was clean, all the theory of 4% is not valid".
Was it your point to say that as many as 56.4% could be clean (a figure which includes steroids, HGH, etc.), and therefore the theory of 4% is not valid based on this fact? If so, I misunderstood. If not, then it still doesn't really seem relevant in any context of this thread.
Yes and no. You cited what I wrote, for your convenience here again the key points:
rekrunner wrote:
1) So the 4%, while certainly on the high end of experts' estimates, is not "completely idiotic", unless you have evidence that the IAAF uses idiots as experts on their ABP panel.
2) Also, yes it is possible to think they all doped (though I don't), and if some of them were clean, that would not prove anything other than that they could run faster when doped.
3) Finally, it is basically impossible nowadays to get the full benefits from EPO doping, for one has to hold back a bit because of the ABP (in some countries more than in others).
But you skipped over them, and jumped into full deflection mode over the 43.6%, for your millionth time, which was just mentioned to support my second key point.
As per ususal, you started making up stuff ("a thread about Kenyan marathon distance running"), lied outright ("no medal breakdown indicated,") and went into full obfuscation mode from there.
The third key point is obvious, and for the first, I cited Schumacher.
For these 4%, I could also have cited for favorite Sunday Times article:
"Experts say blood doping can improve the performance of a 5,000m runner by about 30 seconds – the difference between first place and last in the men’s final at London 2012. In the 10,000m the advantage could be more than a minute."
Last man in that final ran a 13:52, so 30 seconds are at least 3.6%. Noting the "about 30 seconds", 4.0% would be 33 seconds.
Yet last time you went into your troll mode with me, you went berserk just for me estimating 15 - 30 seconds over 5000 m, including steroids and HGH etc.
What do you think I had to confess? I confessed to seeing fast times coming out of Africa, but did not talk about cause and effect.
Subway Surfers wrote:
A Professor of Language? See we forgot that you don't believe epo works, but have also had to confess, due to the overwhelming evidence, that there was an epo era coming out of East Africa, North Africa, Spain and Deutschland Dieter.
rekrunner wrote:
I'll accept you were arguing that as many as 56.4% of 2011 World Championship athletes were self-admittedly clean. I didn't argue the number (this time), but supplemented more facts, that it includes sprinters and fielders and women, unrelated to the male distance events Renato was talking about.
Renato was not excluding the women. On the contrary, the only runner in the title he chose for this thread was female. Why do you lie so much?
rekrunner wrote:
It's always apples and orange comparisons which generate exaggerated errors to make a point that seemingly cannot be made without this deception.
- 1 out of 3 medals are not medalists.
I wrote, evidently correctly, that the gold medals were more suspicious than the bronze medals. But you had to argue - of course falsely - against that too.
Also, evidence? We know that those medalists had, on average, 1.9 medals during that time. Instead of your typical obfuscation without facts, why don't you count the medal winners and medals ? Then you might find a number of 1.7 or 2.1, and actually have a real argument, one way or the other.
rekrunner wrote:
- 1 out of 3 medals is itself inflated, due to women ending up on the podium as a result of steroids, and due to including the "dirty" race walking events.
a) Steroids were not considered, only Hct and ret-%, to judge who is dirty and who is not.
b) Inflated? Evidence? While the dirty walking was included, so was the cleaner decathlon etc.
c) Since steroids were not considered, the real numbers will be significantly higher.
rekrunner wrote:
- 1 out of 7 includes non-endurance athletes less likely to blood dope.
Exactly - so that number would rise, if considering roids etc. Also, the "not suspicious" athletes just weren't caught by the ABP, so either they were clean or "micro"dosed or didn't hear the doorbell when the tester came. Or had next to no OOC testing (remember most of those data were from the last decade, with only rudimentary OOC in Ethiopia and Kenya).
The same is true for the 2 out 3 medals.
rekrunner wrote:
While you can cite Schumacher and other experts, let's always keep in mind that they are anti-doping experts, and not top performance experts. They are unlikely to have observed these up to 4% improvements with the runners producing the times that Renato gave, or the times in the men's final in London 2012.
Well no. The opposite is true: they have seen how Hct correlates with performance at the top-elite level over several years.
rekrunner wrote:
In the other thread, you wrote "order 2 to 4%" and then linked to a source that said "up to 3%", suggesting that peer-reviewed sources backed you up, again artificially generating an exaggerated error. I didn't "go into troll mode" but correctly pointed out this instance of yet another exaggerated misrepresentation.
No. I wrote about 2 - 4% considering all PEDs, and used the 3% source for blood-doping alone. That is no exaggeration (new word for you?), but based on the up to 3% for blood-doping plus an additional percent for steroids and the speed peptide and HGH, as I am now explaining to you for the third time.
I could also have used Schumacher's 1 minute over 10000 m (as discussed in the 5% altitude thread) and the Sunday Times 15 - 30 s over 5000 m. While you were aware of both, you had to pretend my 2 - 4% were an exaggeration, which they were clearly not, while also repeatedly (as now again) ignoring that I included all PEDs in that estimate, whereas those experts only considered blood doping.
To summarize, various experts estimate up to 3 and 4% from blood doping, so my 2 - 4% from all PEDs including EPO are rather an underestimation than an overestimation.
As you well know. But you simply can't stop yourself from arguing. And knowing you, you will come back here tomorrow to lie that I "exaggerated again". Same old, same old.
rekrunner wrote:
If doping is as bad and obvious as you say, why the constant need to exaggerate at every opportunity?
And yet, you were not able to demonstrate a single opportunity where I exaggerated.
And so, we are back to rekrunner vs. the rest. Instead of quadrupling down on your trolling, why don't you try to understand what was written?
rekrunner wrote:
It looks like "Doped to the Max" was the one who wrote "as the result of", not the IAAF or the scientists.
The IAAF and scientists always say wishy-washy words like "can improve as much as".
They also wrote: "targeted at major competitions" and "achieved great success."
rekrunner wrote:
I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you.
Attempted murder is still considered a crime, whether you failed or succeeded.
WADA makes the rules, which include the appropriate punishments for breaking them.
These legal questions are not relevant to a performance discussion.
I'm not interested in the legal discussion.
Yet CAS wrote
"As testified by Dr. Schumacher, high HGB values enhance sporting performance. "
So CAS agrees with the scientist, not with rekrunner. Dude, just give up.
rekrunner wrote:
I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you.
Attempted murder is still considered a crime, whether you failed or succeeded.
WADA makes the rules, which include the appropriate punishments for breaking them.
These legal questions are not relevant to a performance discussion.
I'm not interested in the legal discussion.
0/10 ?
rekrunner wrote:
I'll accept you were arguing that as many as 56.4% of 2011 World Championship athletes were self-admittedly clean. I didn't argue the number (this time), but supplemented more facts, that it includes sprinters and fielders and women, unrelated to the male distance events Renato was talking about.
It's always apples and orange comparisons which generate exaggerated errors to make a point that seemingly cannot be made without this deception.
- 1 out of 3 medals are not medalists.
- 1 out of 3 medals is itself inflated, due to women ending up on the podium as a result of steroids, and due to including the "dirty" race walking events.
- 1 out of 7 includes non-endurance athletes less likely to blood dope.
While you can cite Schumacher and other experts, let's always keep in mind that they are anti-doping experts, and not top performance experts. They are unlikely to have observed these up to 4% improvements with the runners producing the times that Renato gave, or the times in the men's final in London 2012.
Yeah....and let's just keep in mind that you are neither an anti-doping nor performance expert - just some troll from the French Riviera. ?
casual obsever wrote:
Renato was not excluding the women. On the contrary, the only runner in the title he chose for this thread was female.
I didn't say he was. You responded to a post from Renato listing male world records. I only added more facts.
casual obsever wrote:
I wrote, evidently correctly, that the gold medals were more suspicious than the bronze medals. But you had to argue - of course falsely - against that too.
Also, evidence? We know that those medalists had, on average, 1.9 medals during that time. Instead of your typical obfuscation without facts, why don't you count the medal winners and medals ? Then you might find a number of 1.7 or 2.1, and actually have a real argument, one way or the other.
You wrote it to support a claim of higher concentration of doped athletes at the top, as compared to the "whole group". I argued that you should count gold medalists, not gold medals. This is not my burden to count medalists to debunk your unsupported claim. The method used to count dirty medals is flawed because:
1) The abnormal blood value was not correlated in time to the medal win. One bad value in 12 years taints all medals as dirty.
2) Steroids were not considered. The Sunday Times, like Renato, Schumacher, and mindweak, were talking about blood doping. Women taking steroids as well as blood doping, as we know the Russians did, would lead to a higher medal count, which, in the Sunday Times breakdown was only attributed to blood. As you acknowledged, steroids was not considered.
3) Here is a new one -- medalists automatically got tested, so there are more opportunities and a higher probability to have a bad value in the database. Same for Olympians and World Championship athletes. Non-medalists, non-world championship or olympic athletes, would likely have fewer samples in the database.
Here I would partly agree, for the women in the shorter endurance events, because of the proven significant effect of steroids and male hormones for women, that "cheats ... will be more concentrated at the top." But the way the Sunday Times attributed medal wins to blood doping, by not considering steroids, is overstating the contribution of high blood values.
casual obsever wrote:
Exactly - so that number (1 out of 7) would rise, if considering roids etc.
How much that number would rise, compared to the rise among medalists, is important to know, as it could confirm, or debunk, a claim of "more concentrated at the top". As it is, this is also unknown.
casual obsever wrote:
Well no. The opposite is true: they have seen how Hct correlates with performance at the top-elite level over several years.
I would love to see that peer-reviewed discussion of this correlation among top-elite level athletes. The 2018 Schumacher paper I saw on performance profiling looks rather preliminary.
casual obsever wrote:
No. I wrote about 2 - 4% considering all PEDs ...
You said peer-reviewed sources back you up. I said you started with peer-reviewed sources, and took it a few steps beyond your peer-reviewed sources.
casual obsever wrote:
And yet, you were not able to demonstrate a single opportunity where I exaggerated.
Not a single opportunity, but multiple ones. In the other thread, I gave two examples of exaggerations: 1) that "4%" is larger than your peer-reviewed source of "up to 3%", and 2) that "50%" (which includes other sports in the Pan Arab Games) is larger than "43.6%"of the World Championship.
casual obsever wrote:
And so, we are back to rekrunner vs. the rest.
Well, you are not "the rest". But in anycase, that doesn't bother me, because it is not a question that is decided by popular vote.
casual obsever wrote:
They also wrote: "targeted at major competitions" and "achieved great success."
I agree with those statements for Rita Jeptoo.
casual obsever wrote:
Yet CAS wrote:
"As testified by Dr. Schumacher, high HGB values enhance sporting performance."
I agree with Dr. Schumacher too, when he says things like "can take as much as ..."
For clarity, I do not disagree with qualified expert comments like "up to 1 minute" for 10K, or "up to 3%", or general claims of benefit from increased HGB. I only disagreed with non-expert interpretations that these upper bounds of estimates of potential benefit can be applied to the clean 13:07 5000m or clean 27:20 10000m runner that Renato is talking about.
casual obsever wrote:
So CAS agrees with the scientist, not with rekrunner. Dude, just give up.
I also agree with scientists like Dr. Schumacher, when they make statements that can be supported by observations.
Oh, I wish I was trolling from the French Riviera. Far from it. I don't pretend to be an expert in either of these domains, but I do know what it takes to support arguments, and I know how to separate facts from opinions and faith to help attach an appropriate weight to various arguments. I also know that experts in one domain are not necessarily specialists in all related domains.
Can't Believe What I'm Hearing wrote:
Yeah....and let's just keep in mind that you are neither an anti-doping nor performance expert - just some troll from the French Riviera. ?
So another Rosa athlete has been suspended today (Sarah Chepchirchir). Here's an interesting (Kenyan) article from last year that called her out as being as suspicious as her training partners ;
Dramatic improvement of time posted by three elite athletes, including under fire Jemimah Sumgong, has put pressure on their handlers even as the stable, Rosa e Associati, seek to distance itself from the Olympic champions’ failed dope test.
Sumgong, her training partners Rita Jeptoo (now serving a four-year ban) and Sarah Chepchirchir have all returned exponentially high time that have raised eyebrows in athletics circles.
Sumgong took up marathon in 2006 at age 21, running 2:35.00 to win the Las Vegas Marathon. According to records, from 2006 through 2012, she never ran faster than 2:28 across her first six career marathons.
In her next two career marathons, at age 28, she improved by almost eight minutes, running 2:23:27 to win 2013 Rotterdam Marathon, followed by 2:20:48 for second (behind Rita Jeptoo) at the 2013 Chicago Marathon.
She made another huge leap in 2016, winning the two most competitive marathons in the world — London and the Olympics.
Sumgong’s training partner and sister-in-law Sarah Chepchirchir, 32, stunned the world on February 26 this year by winning the Tokyo Marathon in 2:19:47, shaving a clean 5 minutes from her 2:24:13 recorded in Lisbon Portugal on October 2 last year, which had also dramatically lowered from 2:30 in her debut in Hamburg in April last year.
While their agents, Federico and Gabriel Rosa, of Rosa e Associati insist Sumgong’s case “really hurts everyone,” and pointed a finger at doctors.
Following Sumgong’s failed dope test, the Rosas said in a statement to international media: “Doping in Kenya has become a plague, because of unscrupulous Kenyans doctors who approach the athletes, brainwashing and subjecting them to illegal treatments.”
The statement further added: “Therefore, Rosa e Associati dissociates itself from any unsportsmanlike conduct and is offering its full co-operation to the authorities, serenely awaiting the reconstruction of the facts concerning Jemima Sumgong.”
The athletes’ managers distanced themselves saying, “Rosa e Associati rejects whatever conjecture concerning its involvement in the personal choices of the athletes it represents and will strongly protect its integrity whenever necessary.”
However, Norwegian Anti-Doping crusader Arve Bergan, in antidopingworld.wordpress.com, questioned how Dr. Gabriele Rosa was with the athletes twice per day and not able to understand they are doping.
Bergan also took to task the elder Rosa that he had lashed out at Rita Jeptoo’s former coach Claudio Beradelli for saying he had no idea the disgraced marathon runner was doping - a claim the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld that Jeptoo kept her doping hidden from the coach.
“Well Dr Rosa, we ask you the same question, “How are you with the athletes twice per day (sic) and not able to understand they are doping?”
Bergan charged: “Gabriele and Federico Rosa, it’s time to tell the truth. Either admit you’ve been asleep? at the wheel while your athletes have doped with impunity or admit that you helped facilitate it?”
While Kenyan officials and coaches have maintained loud silence citing IAAF procedures and the outcome of Sample B should Sumgong seek retest, questions abound how the case against the Rosas were terminated.
The State on November 22 last year terminated a doping case against Italian athletics agent Federico Rosa even before the trial started raising questions on the Government’s commitment to fight the vice.
A prosecutor told a Kibera court that the he Director of Public Prosecutions had directed that the case be withdrawn under Section 87A of the criminal procedure code.
Rosa was initially formally charged with six counts related to doping and ruining the reputations of two Kenyan athletes.
Coevett wrote:
So another Rosa athlete has been suspended today (Sarah Chepchirchir).
That's what, number 6 now? Hard to keep track.
Let's see how rekrunner and Canova will explain this one away.
In other news, the AIU started only three cases in the last two months. Not impressed.
All three are Kenyan runners. Let's keep that in mind when comparing Kenyans to other nations, or runners to throwers and jumpers.
casual obsever wrote:
Coevett wrote:
So another Rosa athlete has been suspended today (Sarah Chepchirchir).
That's what, number 6 now? Hard to keep track.
Let's see how rekrunner and Canova will explain this one away.
In other news, the AIU started only three cases in the last two months. Not impressed.
All three are Kenyan runners. Let's keep that in mind when comparing Kenyans to other nations, or runners to throwers and jumpers.
Predictable casual. ?
Canova will give another long-winded dissertation on she was not trained at altitude or was injured or something and out of racing shape, and that she took a shortcut with doping to get into top fitness, etc., etc., etc.
The self-pretentious rekrunner will give his usual talking points on his "belief" system and when challenged stating something like this; "but I do know what it takes to support arguments, and I know how to separate facts from opinions and faith to help attach an appropriate weight to various arguments." (see above post).
Que Sera Sera......
rekrunner wrote:
Oh, I wish I was trolling from the French Riviera. Far from it.
I don't pretend to be an expert in either of these domains, but I do know what it takes to support arguments, and I know how to separate facts from opinions and faith to help attach an appropriate weight to various arguments. I also know that experts in one domain are not necessarily specialists in all related domains.
Oh...and no one else posting on these subjects know "how to separate facts from opinions and attach the appropriate weight to various arguments?" Only you have that ability and the rest of us must pay homage to you?
Evidently not.
Barrel of Laughs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Oh, I wish I was trolling from the French Riviera. Far from it.
I don't pretend to be an expert in either of these domains, but I do know what it takes to support arguments, and I know how to separate facts from opinions and faith to help attach an appropriate weight to various arguments. I also know that experts in one domain are not necessarily specialists in all related domains.
Oh...and no one else posting on these subjects know "how to separate facts from opinions and attach the appropriate weight to various arguments?" Only you have that ability and the rest of us must pay homage to you?
You can refer to previous explanations, because there is no need for me to change any. Athletes take drugs based on belief and hope. Sometimes it works. Sometimes they get busted. Belief in drugs in the hope of improved performance is deep and wide -- for many examples, just visit letsrun forums. Given the circumstances around Sumgong, Chepchirchir's suspension was predictable. Renato explained in the very first post how the lack of central management makes it hard to control athletes, and protect them from outside influences, when they are not at the training camp.
casual obsever wrote:
Coevett wrote:
So another Rosa athlete has been suspended today (Sarah Chepchirchir).
That's what, number 6 now? Hard to keep track.
Let's see how rekrunner and Canova will explain this one away.