The Ingebrigtsen's prove that the East African 'natural born runner' superiority is a myth. Here's why.

Once again, the measure in question was doping test results, as a method of estimating "dopers caught". The measure was not confirmed reports or busts. When you say 1-2%, "positive" test results are what is being measured. Not "dopers caught", not "doping prevalence", but the percentage of AAF (and ATF) results in all samples tested in all WADA Olympic and Paralympic sports. Sure, doping can be found in all sports in all countries -- but performance superiority in distance running cannot, suggesting a lack of correlation. I don't doubt athletes' attitudes or beliefs or human nature or generally high doping prevalence. I have always looked at trends in performance, and based my comments and opinions on certain trends, or lack thereof. Historical performance is a reality, and not an optional belief.

The thing is, all of us can read what others write, and how the original meaning evolves when you retell it. This is demonstrable, and has been repeatedly demonstrated. Here I'll give a "dramatic re-enactment" of a "Coevett" transformation: "Coevett just called EVERYONE here CLUELESS -- NOBODY has a clue. There is no way any sane or intelligent person would conclude otherwise, and now there is no way to convince me otherwise."

Coevett wrote:

Oh yeah, all the doping apologists here like to play the game of call Coevett a liar, and now that you've accused me of lying that you claim doping does not work, nobody on this forum will ever again believe that you have ever claimed that doping does not work.

Except that it wont change much.

If you're NOT claiming that doping doesn't work, nobody here, and I mean NOBODY, has a clue what you are talking about, and let's face it, you've talked about it a lot - maybe spent entire months of your life here trying to get across a message that literally nobody understands.

Armstronglivs wrote:

There have been no confirmed reports that Jones and Armstrong failed drug tests, only allegations, but if they had failed drug tests why weren't they busted? We can have little confidence in anti-doping if serial dopers do fail tests yet escape sanction.

Jones was already banned for test evasion in high school, but won the appeal. She also had a positive A test for EPO in 2006, but the B was negative.

Armstrong tested positive for corticosteroids in 1999, but UCI let him off the hook after he presented a back-dated prescription.

As for "little confidence in anti-doping": obviously. Armstrong doped for years and years right under the nose of USADA, allegedly the toughest NADO of them all. We also know that (likely more than) 44% of our world championship athletes dope, and only a tiny fraction is being caught. Check the AIU page: 1 - 3 new cases per month, ridiculo. And that includes retesting as well as non-championship athletes.

All of that is of course well established, and lots of experts have openly noted that. For example:

John Hoberman, an expert in performance-enhancing drug use from the University of Texas at Austin, said that he wasn’t surprised by the findings. “The entire elite global sports system has built incentives to dope into itself in such a way that these are irresistible incentives,” he said.

Dick Pound, ex WADA President:

"you can miss two tests simply by not answering the door if you're on something."

"There is no general appetite to undertake the effort and expense of a successful effort to deliver doping-free sport."

"There's this psychological aspect about it: nobody wants to catch anybody. There's no incentive. Countries are embarrassed if their nationals are caught. And sports are embarrassed if someone from their sport is caught."

ESPN: "Pound complained that athletes don't speak out against doping, national and international federations are weak on the issue, national agencies are under the influence of governments, and governments have no incentive to catch their own nationals."

Paul Scott, the chief science officer of Korva Labs, a testing and research laboratory focused on anti-doping:

"Drug testing has a public reputation that far exceeds its capabilities."

"Sophisticated dopers have come to understand how to work around the Athlete Biological Passport," he warns. "They have evaluated correctly that they need to pare back taking steroids or EPO and they will still get most of the benefits."

Michael Ashenden, SIAB Research Consortium:

"Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. "

rekrunner wrote:

It is equally as bad, even after considering dozens of doping cases including Olympic champions and world record holders.

When you consider the population of elite athletes that have come out of Kenya, and East Africa,"dozens" is still a relatively small percentage.

You try to hide it with words like "staggering confirmation" and "clear evidence of doping/doping cultures", to make the case appear stronger, and attempt to put yourself in a large camp of "sane and rational" observers -- I see this as part of the problem.

Point the finger at the doped champions, but not at the clean ones. If you can't tell the difference -- that is also part of the problem.

Curious: When you say "if you can't tell the difference," are you simplifying your standpoint to an AAF/ABP violation/scandal, etc. = doped vs no AAF/ABP violation/scandal = clean?

What about any suspicious circumstances that may be involved, or are you saying if a champion hasn't been implicated in any doping (AAF, ABP violation, scandal, etc.) then no "finger pointing?" Are you trying to make this very concrete where if a champion is implicated in doping they're fair game but if they're not - then hands off and no casting any suspicion?

I'll give you an example of some Olympic Champions who haven't been implicated in any doping: El G, Bekele, Kosgei, Cacho, Borzakovskiy. Do you think their performances are clean or is there some legitimate suspicion given their country affiliation (high doping prevelance) and the time period (EPO abuse era) when the medals were won? If these suspicious circumstances are ignored and going with the fact that neither tested positive for anything, is it your view that they should be given the benefit of doubt? Is it your view that any "finger pointing" should only be at athletes implicating in doping violations?

Rekrunner even defended Olaf Beyer and Straub after their old GDR coach was fairly recently fined for feeding illegal drugs to child athletes. In fact, he even defended the coach!

casual obsever wrote:

Jones was already banned for test evasion in high school, but won the appeal. She also had a positive A test for EPO in 2006, but the B was negative.

Armstrong tested positive for corticosteroids in 1999, but UCI let him off the hook after he presented a back-dated prescription.

Good research -- you beat me to it.

On Jones: If I recall correctly didn't she admit using EPO along with the the other BALCO cocktails (mainly "The Clear") when she finally broke down and fessed up after lying under oath? If that's case, how did they botch the "B" sample? Some inside help...maybe? ?

Coevett wrote:

Rekrunner even defended Olaf Beyer and Straub after their old GDR coach was fairly recently fined for feeding illegal drugs to child athletes. In fact, he even defended the coach!

Shame on rekrunner...he should know better.

World-Famous Dopers wrote:

On Jones: If I recall correctly didn't she admit using EPO along with the the other BALCO cocktails (mainly "The Clear") when she finally broke down and fessed up after lying under oath? If that's case, how did they botch the "B" sample? Some inside help...maybe? ?

Maybe the same help that Bernard B Sample Lagat received?

It seems to me that a significant element that is missing in this kind of discussion is the psychology and sociology of doping. We tend to overlook the pressures as well as the incentives that shape the attitudes of athletes in this regard. Professional athletes exist within a cultural framework that the outsider may little understand. While we, from our perspective, may deplore doping, for the professional athlete it may be seen simply as a necessary feature of their chosen occupation. What is "acceptable" or "normal" in any situation will largely depend on the nature of the culture concerned, and sports - and especially professional sports - have their own culture, where the values of outsiders - fans, spectators and such - may have little relevance.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It seems to me that a significant element that is missing in this kind of discussion is the psychology and sociology of doping. We tend to overlook the pressures as well as the incentives that shape the attitudes of athletes in this regard. Professional athletes exist within a cultural framework that the outsider may little understand. While we, from our perspective, may deplore doping, for the professional athlete it may be seen simply as a necessary feature of their chosen occupation. What is "acceptable" or "normal" in any situation will largely depend on the nature of the culture concerned, and sports - and especially professional sports - have their own culture, where the values of outsiders - fans, spectators and such - may have little relevance.

Careful, Coevett will accuse you of doping

I attacked your characterization, "in the interest of factual correctness", while remaining silent about Beyer, Straub and "the coach". You described it as "feeding potentially lethal peds to one of his 14 year old girl athletes", inconsistent with your sources. I counted 4 inconsistencies in that single phrase alone. I did not say anything about Beyer and Straub, and I did not condone the coach breaking German law. It's not surprising that your "reflex" is to concoct more lies.

Coevett wrote:

Rekrunner even defended Olaf Beyer and Straub after their old GDR coach was fairly recently fined for feeding illegal drugs to child athletes. In fact, he even defended the coach!

You should know better, considering the source.

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Rekrunner even defended Olaf Beyer and Straub after their old GDR coach was fairly recently fined for feeding illegal drugs to child athletes. In fact, he even defended the coach!

Shame on rekrunner...he should know better.

There's a few differences between Armstrong and yourself.

Armstrong has never claimed to be a sub-elite runner (as far as I know).

Armstrong is generally sickened by the doping spectacle (at least that's the impression I get).

You have claimed that cheating is 'human nature' and universal. Although Armstrong believes doping is near universal today, he believes it was the opposite before the professional era.

You've claimed to be a sub-elite British 800m runner who has competed at the British championships and been a regular at BMC meetings. You've claimed that doping is rife everywhere and that practically everybody will cheat given the opportunity to do so because it is universal human nature. You've ridiculed me for believing that athletes such as Anthony Whiteman are clean, and you've boasted that there was no testing at the BMC meetings you competed at.

Despite your slanders against the likes of Whiteman, based on no other fact it seems that in your experience Whiteman could have cheated (like you) and so must have (because of human nature), you think I'm a racist for being suspicious of East African performances where anti-testing procedures are a shambles, where dozens of athletes have yet been caught, and where the two leading athletics nations - Kenya and Ethiopia - are on the four country strong 'watch list' of places where athletes are most likely to be doping.

Subway is a clear example of the attitude you would expect from a sub-elite or national class runner who feels he could have been closer to the top if he had doped like many of his competitors that he suspected/suspects.

You say you reached the British championships. Just by that fact you must have been close to getting an international vest and such. Yet despite believing that most of the guys ahead of you were doping and therefore cheating you out of finals (if you yourself were clean), vests, and medals, you seem quite chilled out by it, and in fact reserve your bitterness for those like myself and Subway who think doping is disgusting.

It doesn't add up does it? It's like Nick Willis maintaining that he was clean (when challenged) but accusing many of his rivals of being doped and being quite blase about it. Maybe only getting angry online when accusing somebody of racism for criticizing Kiprop or Ramzi.

Perhaps Nick Willis is putting on an act when expressing his frustration at doping in athletics (although I don't believe for a moment it is an act). But even that would show that if you want to present yourself as a clean athlete, you adopt a public anti-doping stance. You don't get onside with doping apologists.

The source being several prominent German media organizations, the details of the court's judgement being clear to anyone either using Google Translate or who can read German (like myself), and that only a doping apologist autist would quibble with (Rekrunner claiming that a former GDR coach giving a child 'illegal and dangerous medications' to boost their performance is not the same as supplying an athlete with peds).

rekrunner wrote:

You should know better, considering the source.

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

Shame on rekrunner...he should know better.

rekrunner wrote:

You should know better, considering the source.

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

Shame on rekrunner...he should know better.

Coevett giving positive feedback to his own lies - nothing new.

rekrunner wrote:

You should know better, considering the source.

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

Shame on rekrunner...he should know better.

Coevett giving positive feedback to his own lies - nothing new.

No. I'm saying it's your responsibility to avoid insulting clean athletes for succeeding in what every athlete strives for. "It is tempting to attribute outstanding performances to the alleged use of doping. The main problem with such a line of thinking is that the athlete will always lose in any such discussion. ... Linking extraordinary athletic performances to doping use is highly insulting to clean champions." This does not exclude individual suspicions, but does discourage sweeping generalizations.

Unlike you, these sources did not say "potentially lethal", did not say "performance enhancing", and actually did say it was NOT DOPING. I can hardly be called a doping apologist when your own German sources said it was NOT DOPING. For someone who can read German, it doesn't seem to have prevented you again from misinterpreting and mischaracterizing the clearly written word.

Coevett wrote:

The source being several prominent German media organizations, the details of the court's judgement being clear to anyone either using Google Translate or who can read German (like myself), and that only a doping apologist autist would quibble with (Rekrunner claiming that a former GDR coach giving a child 'illegal and dangerous medications' to boost their performance is not the same as supplying an athlete with peds).

You doper-posters take a dump all over every thread you take over.