Another obvious doper caught. More rambling posts from Kenyan-doping apologists. Yawn.
Arguing if doping is prevalent in Kenyan is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The more relevant debate should be how far back does this rot go? When did it become widespread? When did distance running become an utter farce?
Obvious doper? (Rhonex K.) If that were the case why is arguably the world's most famous distance running coach, Dr Renato Canova, not in full agreement with your statement?
Everyone who has met and interacted with Rhonex, paint the picture of a baby faced adolescent looking runner, gracious and modest in manner, and generous to a fault, dishing out candy and groceries to local kids and families.
Everyone in ITEN portrays Rhonex as a choir boy type of kid. Wishful thinking? Let the enquiry run its course. Too many gaps in this story.
Mr Canova. Can you explain why so many kenyan distance runners of all levels have tested positive and banned for taking performance enhancing drugs if they have no real effect? Also, what do you think is the role of European coached and managers in the proliferation of PEDs in Kenya. Thank you.
Part of the answer to your question is "belief". Many people believe in the potential power of performance enhancing drugs to take athletes to the next level, or for athletes past their peak, to recover their peak, or to reduce the decay -- not only athletes, but managers, coaches, agents, doctors, pharmacists, fans, husbands, friends, etc.
The other part of the answer is that there are so many Kenyan distance runners who perform well. Looking at distance events ranging from 1500m to the marathon, in 2022, Kenyans competing as Kenyans accounted for 27% of athletes with elite performances (in the "alltime athletics" listings). If we theoretically assumed an average prevalence and doping detection rate, we should predict many Kenyans testing positive.
Another part of the answer is that organizations like the AIU spend more of their resources target testing athletes who perform well. Nations with underperforming athletes will be tested less and subsequently underrepresented in positives tests. This actually skews detection rates towards those who perform well, as they are overrepresented overall.
Another part of the answer is lack of awareness, on the part of the athletes, doctors, pharmacists, who prescribe banned substances as standard remedies for real ailments, or who don't fully appreciate the athlete's obligations and constraints, or who don't realize that certain supplements may also contain banned ingredients, either labeled or unlabeled.
Another part of the answer can be accidental ingestion. For example, nandrolone is a common positive test result, and unlike many Western countries, like the USA and Canada, Kenya is not a nation that routinely castrates its pigs.
None of that is "part of the answer". It is your speculation or invention -which is simply another form of denial.
More Kenyan athletes are being caught because more Kenyans dope, and they dope because it aids their performances, not because they simply imagine it does, and nor are they innocent victims being busted for "accidental ingestion". Doping is at the heart of their sport. You are a complete fantasist. Your attempts to minimize or deny Kenyan doping are a joke. Will you come out with the same arguments with the next bust - because we know it is coming, and soon - like clockwork?
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
Another obvious doper caught. More rambling posts from Kenyan-doping apologists. Yawn.
Arguing if doping is prevalent in Kenyan is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The more relevant debate should be how far back does this rot go? When did it become widespread? When did distance running become an utter farce?
Obvious doper? (Rhonex K.) If that were the case why is arguably the world's most famous distance running coach, Dr Renato Canova, not in full agreement with your statement?
Everyone who has met and interacted with Rhonex, paint the picture of a baby faced adolescent looking runner, gracious and modest in manner, and generous to a fault, dishing out candy and groceries to local kids and families.
Everyone in ITEN portrays Rhonex as a choir boy type of kid. Wishful thinking? Let the enquiry run its course. Too many gaps in this story.
Thank you.
According to WADA, doping in athletics is up there with the worst of other sports, like bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling. The Kenyans are amongst the worst in distance running. I'm sure there are "babyfaced" weightlifters, body builders and cyclists. So they aren't doping? You would be laughed off these threads if you attempted to minimize doping in those sports. Yet that is what you and others here do with Kenyan doping.
Great post! - I see you know something about the ABP.
The ABP has been accepted in CAS Jurisprudence as a reliable and accepted means of evidence to assist in establishing anti-doping rule violations.
The ABP hematological module is based on the adaptive model that looks at HGB concentration, RET% & OFF-score that are outside of the athlete's usual values.
Abnormalities must be at a 99.00% specificity (entails a statistical rate of a false positive of 1 in 10,000) - ruling out the likelihood of environmental, medical & analytical effects as causes of the abnormalities.
Here's great overview of the hematological module of the ABP published by Dr Olaf Schumacher:
Olaf Schumacher is one of the world's leading experts in the hematological module of the ABP and has served on the anti-doping expert panels of numerous CAS hearings for both athletics & the UCI. He also published many papers on the effects of altitude training, prolonged exercise, dehydration on the ABP.
If you want learn as much as you can about the ABP - Schumacher is the expert to study under.
There are also published CAS hearings as PDFs for hematological cases involving Kiptum, Chepkirui & Wanjiru that anyone can access & read.
In addition, the ABP is also used quite extensively for target testing.
Maybe it's a typo, or maybe I don't understand what you are saying, but can you explain how "99.00% specificity (entails a statistical rate of a false positive of 1 in 10,000)"? That doesn't look quite right to me -- one way or another, it looks like too many zeros. Wouldn't 1 in 10,000 be 99.99% specificity? Usually scientists talk about 1 in 100 thresholds for initial screening and 1 in 1,000 thresholds for candidates for convictions.
Besides the science of the ABP, the more important part is deciding that that science is applicable. What is sure, and something scientists like Schumacher tell us frequently, is that there are many things which can confound this "negative specificity" besides doping. That's why an expert, and/or a panel of experts, has to review the data package, to make sure that none of these confounders have creeped in that would invalidate the conclusions. The fate of athletes depends not only on the objectivitity, reliability, and applicability of the scientific models, but also the consistent independence, integrity, and expertise of the experts, and subsequently, on the independence and impartiality of the adjudicators.
The challenge for innocent athletes who are falsely accused, once they've been suspended on suspicion of an ABP violation, is that a proper defense would have to look for and prove the likelihood of any of these confounders in one or more of these sample results, from as many as 32 samples taken as far back in 2018. This might be possible with the recorded data and current research, but then again, it might actually require more research that doesn't exist. For example, was the 2-hour rule respected for an OOC blood sample, say after that day's workout, or was the athlete properly hydrated, or perhaps anemic due to the onset of some illness? At the point of the announcment of the suspension, it may already be too late for the athlete, who is now considered guilty unless he can prove he (she) is probably not guilty. They would have to hire an ABP scientist like Schumacher to help them show where the sample results, and the ABP calculations from the trends, have deviated from the theoretical ABP model. This might require information not recorded at the time of the sample collection, and not recollectable (or provable) several years after the fact. We have seen in other contexts, that these kinds of experts are not as freely available to the athletes to help prepare a defense as they are for ADOs and ADAs when preparing a case working to enforce WADA rules and when adjudicating the case.
Some studies have shown that the effects of EPO on running performance are largely due to the placebo effect, namely, that they believe that they are getting something that makes them able to run faster, longer. Others cite smaller effects on performance tied to the physio-chemical properties of the drug itself.
Some studies have shown that the effects of EPO on running performance are largely due to the placebo effect, namely, that they believe that they are getting something that makes them able to run faster, longer. Others cite smaller effects on performance tied to the physio-chemical properties of the drug itself.
And far more studies show huge improvements, including one that found Kenyan runners improve their 3000m times by 5%. That's an 8:00 runner into a 7:34 runner. Please don't feed the troll.
None of that is "part of the answer". It is your speculation or invention -which is simply another form of denial.
More Kenyan athletes are being caught because more Kenyans dope, and they dope because it aids their performances, not because they simply imagine it does, and nor are they innocent victims being busted for "accidental ingestion". Doping is at the heart of their sport. You are a complete fantasist. Your attempts to minimize or deny Kenyan doping are a joke. Will you come out with the same arguments with the next bust - because we know it is coming, and soon - like clockwork?
It's your strong belief in many things unproven that denies the signficance of these other factors.
Given the high quantity and high quality of Kenyan athletes and performances, and the general strategy of testing high performers more, I would predict (and not deny) a higher absolute number of positive tests from this group of high performers, even assuming average prevalence, and uniform testing.
This will not change with the next bust, as that only confirms my predictions.
A few pages back you referred to WADA 2019 ADRVs. As a nation, Kenya compares to India and Russia. Would you also say that for India and Russia, "it aids their performance"? Where were the comparable Indian and Russian performances? If doping were as connected to performance as you suggest, you should be able to easily show it.
Coevett, the kenyans improving their PB of 5 % really improved from 9'30" to 8'55", not from 8' to 7'34"....
I had a lot of occasions for explaining why that research was the most idiotic research all time, but there is still somebody like you thinking that research can have validity for REAL athletes with a REAL training and a REAL talent.
Some studies have shown that the effects of EPO on running performance are largely due to the placebo effect, namely, that they believe that they are getting something that makes them able to run faster, longer. Others cite smaller effects on performance tied to the physio-chemical properties of the drug itself.
And far more studies show huge improvements, including one that found Kenyan runners improve their 3000m times by 5%. That's an 8:00 runner into a 7:34 runner. Please don't feed the troll.
That's not contradictory - placebo effect is a real effect and can produce huge improvements. EPO studies are rarely blinded.
Note most performance studies look at short term improvements for the short duration of the study -- did they get faster after some weeks of training -- rather than establish that doping can help these subjects reach higher than their highest levels of maximum performance.
For example, the Kenyan trial you reference didn't take 8:00 runners and turn then into 7:34 runners. They took the equivalent of 8:00 runners, and used EPO to take them from a pre-EPO baseline of about 9:20, to about 9:00. Despite the repeated publications and headlines of the same trials, that is hardly an interesting outcome. It would have been interesting if they had produced some 7:34 performances. But they didn't.
Great post! - I see you know something about the ABP.
The ABP has been accepted in CAS Jurisprudence as a reliable and accepted means of evidence to assist in establishing anti-doping rule violations.
The ABP hematological module is based on the adaptive model that looks at HGB concentration, RET% & OFF-score that are outside of the athlete's usual values.
Abnormalities must be at a 99.00% specificity (entails a statistical rate of a false positive of 1 in 10,000) - ruling out the likelihood of environmental, medical & analytical effects as causes of the abnormalities.
Here's great overview of the hematological module of the ABP published by Dr Olaf Schumacher:
Olaf Schumacher is one of the world's leading experts in the hematological module of the ABP and has served on the anti-doping expert panels of numerous CAS hearings for both athletics & the UCI. He also published many papers on the effects of altitude training, prolonged exercise, dehydration on the ABP.
If you want learn as much as you can about the ABP - Schumacher is the expert to study under.
There are also published CAS hearings as PDFs for hematological cases involving Kiptum, Chepkirui & Wanjiru that anyone can access & read.
In addition, the ABP is also used quite extensively for target testing.
Maybe it's a typo, or maybe I don't understand what you are saying, but can you explain how "99.00% specificity (entails a statistical rate of a false positive of 1 in 10,000)"? That doesn't look quite right to me -- one way or another, it looks like too many zeros. Wouldn't 1 in 10,000 be 99.99% specificity? Usually scientists talk about 1 in 100 thresholds for initial screening and 1 in 1,000 thresholds for candidates for convictions.
Besides the science of the ABP, the more important part is deciding that that science is applicable. What is sure, and something scientists like Schumacher tell us frequently, is that there are many things which can confound this "negative specificity" besides doping. That's why an expert, and/or a panel of experts, has to review the data package, to make sure that none of these confounders have creeped in that would invalidate the conclusions. The fate of athletes depends not only on the objectivitity, reliability, and applicability of the scientific models, but also the consistent independence, integrity, and expertise of the experts, and subsequently, on the independence and impartiality of the adjudicators.
The challenge for innocent athletes who are falsely accused, once they've been suspended on suspicion of an ABP violation, is that a proper defense would have to look for and prove the likelihood of any of these confounders in one or more of these sample results, from as many as 32 samples taken as far back in 2018. This might be possible with the recorded data and current research, but then again, it might actually require more research that doesn't exist. For example, was the 2-hour rule respected for an OOC blood sample, say after that day's workout, or was the athlete properly hydrated, or perhaps anemic due to the onset of some illness? At the point of the announcment of the suspension, it may already be too late for the athlete, who is now considered guilty unless he can prove he (she) is probably not guilty. They would have to hire an ABP scientist like Schumacher to help them show where the sample results, and the ABP calculations from the trends, have deviated from the theoretical ABP model. This might require information not recorded at the time of the sample collection, and not recollectable (or provable) several years after the fact. We have seen in other contexts, that these kinds of experts are not as freely available to the athletes to help prepare a defense as they are for ADOs and ADAs when preparing a case working to enforce WADA rules and when adjudicating the case.
Yes...it was a typo: should read 99.99% specificity (1 in 10,000). Thanks for catching it.
You have legitimate concerns on confounders. However, Schumacher & others have conducted studies on a lot of those issues. For example, a big concern, especially with the Kenyans, are athletes living & training at altitude & it's effect on the ABP. Schumacher & other researchers have conducted studies on this & they're oftened used in the CAS hearings. Other concerns such as dehydration, illness, prescription medications, etc and their effect on the ABP has also been studied.
You can easily get access to Schumacher's published studies & start researching those areas of concern you have. I try to read as many as I can in my spare time but there are a ton of studies in their data base. Furthermore, reading some of the CAS hearings is a challenge as these are very lengthy & encompassing.
However I'm not quite on the same page as you when it comes to your thoughts about super shoes and the advantage they confer on distance and marathon runners. Running 208 209 who were previously in the 213 to 2:16 bracket so I believe there is a tremendous advantage in wearing super shoes especially for those elite athletes who are not quite at the top level. French elite athletes themselves have told me what a great advantage these super shoes confer. These athletes include Manu Levisse (2:11), Bour (2:11), Carvalho (2:10), Chahdi (2:08), and others.
mr canova (if this really is you); as of today the legitimate science has confirmed improvements of about 30 seconds for 5 k and about 1 min for the 10 k. something like that. im sure someone on the boards can confirm.
so basically one could argue that a 7:45-7:50 3 k guy should/could be able to produce 7:30ish times after a bout of EPO. That is, a swedish top elite guy wud suddenly be world class. :) not bad.
off topic: which football team in italy do you support? my youth team coach was italian. he had played for parma in his youth. and a distant relative of mine was the reserve goalie for ac milan back in the glory days when rossi was the untouchable :) ciaoooo!
Obvious doper? (Rhonex K.) If that were the case why is arguably the world's most famous distance running coach, Dr Renato Canova, not in full agreement with your statement?
Everyone who has met and interacted with Rhonex, paint the picture of a baby faced adolescent looking runner, gracious and modest in manner, and generous to a fault, dishing out candy and groceries to local kids and families.
Everyone in ITEN portrays Rhonex as a choir boy type of kid. Wishful thinking? Let the enquiry run its course. Too many gaps in this story.
Thank you.
According to WADA, doping in athletics is up there with the worst of other sports, like bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling. The Kenyans are amongst the worst in distance running. I'm sure there are "babyfaced" weightlifters, body builders and cyclists. So they aren't doping? You would be laughed off these threads if you attempted to minimize doping in those sports. Yet that is what you and others here do with Kenyan doping.
It is ironic that you mentioned the exact sports, weightlifting, body building and cycling where doping is rife and often treated with kids gloves and not repressed to anywhere near the level compared with track and field. Of course there is a problem with Kenyan doping but the people on these threads who claim that all Kenyans are involved in doping is just as ridiculous as saying there is no doping among Kenyan runners. A middle ground would be more sensible to adopt.
mr canova (if this really is you); as of today the legitimate science has confirmed improvements of about 30 seconds for 5 k and about 1 min for the 10 k. something like that. im sure someone on the boards can confirm.
so basically one could argue that a 7:45-7:50 3 k guy should/could be able to produce 7:30ish times after a bout of EPO. That is, a swedish top elite guy wud suddenly be world class. :) not bad.
No. Science has confirmed no such thing -- not for these elite performances.
Yes...it was a typo: should read 99.99% specificity (1 in 10,000). Thanks for catching it.
You have legitimate concerns on confounders. However, Schumacher & others have conducted studies on a lot of those issues. For example, a big concern, especially with the Kenyans, are athletes living & training at altitude & it's effect on the ABP. Schumacher & other researchers have conducted studies on this & they're oftened used in the CAS hearings. Other concerns such as dehydration, illness, prescription medications, etc and their effect on the ABP has also been studied.
You can easily get access to Schumacher's published studies & start researching those areas of concern you have. I try to read as many as I can in my spare time but there are a ton of studies in their data base. Furthermore, reading some of the CAS hearings is a challenge as these are very lengthy & encompassing.
What concerns me more is not what Schumacher studied and published, but the human side of the equation, and more generally the adjudication process permitted by the WADA Code which puts accused athlete at a disadvantage. I have questions like: How well will these potential confounders get detected and considered in each and every sample and each decision. Do the "experts" give it proper weight each and every time? If they don't, can the athlete get another expert to challenge the findings? Will the athlete get timely access to all the necessary data used to accuse them to mount the defense they need? Will they have to conduct further research (like Froome did)? If they get outside experts, will the adjudicators be neutral and independent, or is there a risk of bias (conscious or unconcious) to accept the testimony of familiar experts?
According to WADA, doping in athletics is up there with the worst of other sports, like bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling. The Kenyans are amongst the worst in distance running. I'm sure there are "babyfaced" weightlifters, body builders and cyclists. So they aren't doping? You would be laughed off these threads if you attempted to minimize doping in those sports. Yet that is what you and others here do with Kenyan doping.
It is ironic that you mentioned the exact sports, weightlifting, body building and cycling where doping is rife and often treated with kids gloves and not repressed to anywhere near the level compared with track and field. Of course there is a problem with Kenyan doping but the people on these threads who claim that all Kenyans are involved in doping is just as ridiculous as saying there is no doping among Kenyan runners. A middle ground would be more sensible to adopt.
Doping is largely understood and accepted in weightlifting and cycling. Cycling has been a professional team sport since the 19th century. You can't compare it to track.
One thing that the 'let them dope' brigade here miss (I hope) is that most 'competitive runners' are kids. If you allow doping in athletics, even if you brought in some rule for no doping for under 18s, you would be creating a doping culture and high school kids would end up doping and taking roids and carcegenic sarms.
mr canova (if this really is you); as of today the legitimate science has confirmed improvements of about 30 seconds for 5 k and about 1 min for the 10 k. something like that. im sure someone on the boards can confirm.
so basically one could argue that a 7:45-7:50 3 k guy should/could be able to produce 7:30ish times after a bout of EPO. That is, a swedish top elite guy wud suddenly be world class. :) not bad.
No. Science has confirmed no such thing -- not for these elite performances.
Of course it has, for example in form of scientist Schumacher.
But feel free to argue against that based on your beliefs. The propaganda show must go on after all.
mr canova (if this really is you); as of today the legitimate science has confirmed improvements of about 30 seconds for 5 k and about 1 min for the 10 k. something like that. im sure someone on the boards can confirm.
so basically one could argue that a 7:45-7:50 3 k guy should/could be able to produce 7:30ish times after a bout of EPO. That is, a swedish top elite guy wud suddenly be world class. :) not bad.
off topic: which football team in italy do you support? my youth team coach was italian. he had played for parma in his youth. and a distant relative of mine was the reserve goalie for ac milan back in the glory days when rossi was the untouchable :) ciaoooo!
Legitimate science didn't confirm the amount of advantage athletes can have with EPO. Legitimate science can only confirm the advantage that the subjects part of the research had using doping.
But the type of training is the key : increasing volume and specific intensity is the real reason of improvement, and in all those pseudo-researches never there is a description of the training proposal.
For who is interested to study the effects of doping, it seems training is not important, but every change in the level of performances depends on doping only.
I had athletes bettering World Records without using any substance, legal or illegal. Their improvement, in a period of 4-6 months, was due to the evolution of training only, and allowed them to run steeple in 7'53", marathon in 2:03, winning World Titles in steeple, half-marathon (men and women), marathon, cross country.
If you want to see the effects of doping, you need to maintain all the other factors at the same level, for example :
a) Athlete running 3000m in 8' : same training + doping (maybe moving to 7'50")
b) Athlete running 3000m in 8' : more proper training (without doping) moving to 7'45"
c) Athlete running 3000m in 8' : more proper training + doping (maybe 7'40")
d) Athlete running 3000m in 7'30" : same training + doping (maybe moving to 7'27")
e) Athlete running 3000m in 7'30" : more proper training (without doping) moving to 7'25"
f) Athlete running 3000m in 7'30" : more proper training + doping (maybe moving to 7'25")
g) Athlete running 3000m in 9'30" : same training + doping (maybe 9')
h) Athlete running 3000m in 9'30" : more proper training (without doping) moving to 9'
i) Athlete running 3000m in 9'30" : more proper training + doping (maybe 8'45")
It means that lower is the level of the performance, higher is the advantage with doping.
The change of training, increasing volume and specific intensity in the right way, is the factor at the base of many jumps of performances in short time, after several years of stagnation at the same level (something in Kenya happens frequently when talented athletes who in the village had no assistance, food included, finally can go in a training camp where can eat every day and can have proper training programs inside big groups of other strong runners).