Here are four: Decker,C Coe, Radcliffe (hence the nickname Gary), and currently Houlihan as demonstrated in over ten threads.
Hmmmm, all white and (more or less) English speaking.
For example, Decker is an interesting case. It looks like she was convicted by a combination of both bad science and bad law. She was technically never found with high Testosterone, but a high T/E ratio, which can also be triggered by low Epitestorone. She initially won based on challenging the validity of the test, especially for women in their mid-30s on birth control whose hormones can fluctuate. Then she was tried independently "de novo" by an unsatisfied IAAF, becoming a victim of double-jeopardy, and forced to challenge the test again, and this time she lost (after nearly three years of an unreasonably long process, I think she finally gave up and didn't even attend her final hearing). Shortly after Mary was convicted by the T/E test, the IOC changed the test because it was no longer considered valid enough for convictions. This was before the formation of WADA and USADA. Today trial by double-jeopardy could not happen, and Decker would not be convicted by a high T/E ratio test alone.
But if it is true that Mary took Testosterone, at the age of 37, intentionally for performance enhancement, or unintentionally through non-medicinal supplements, or negligent medication, I cannot apologize for her intent or negligence. The question remains though, did she take exogenous testosterone at all?
Too bad they didn't have the Carbon Isotope Ratio (CIR) test back then - the only testing assay that can distinguish between synthetic plant-based testosterone vs naturally occurring cholesterol-based testosterone. But all they had was the T/E ratio which was set very high at 6:1
Now ratio is set at 4:1 - which will automatically trigger a CIR analysis. But an athlete who is in testing pool & subjected to the ABP won't have to breach the 4:1 ratio - just suspicious fluctuations on the ratio in passport will result in target testing with CIR.
If it wasn't for CIR test, Gatlin would have never been caught for exogenous testosterone use. The CIR test has been the game changer in combating against the use of synthetic testosterone:
Because those are the cases I have seen you discuss the most. Your self-chosen Kenyan examples are interestingly different: here you don't throw any doubt onto the correctness of their judgments, f.ex arguing that their ridiculous excuses are actually the truth or that you have "lingering questions about..." lol.
What a wild contrast to Decker ("bad science and bad law"; "IF it is true that Mary took Testosterone) and Houlihan") ("I have a lot of lingering questions about the evidence presented, the evidence not presented, and some of the decisions made"; "IF it is really" lol lol lol)...
But yes, that "Kiprop got slower in 2016 and 2017" is also a good example for your doping apologism, trying to decrease his guilt (as if doping didn't help him lol) and furthermore completely irrelevant and obfuscating because you have no idea when he started doping.
What's even more strange is that if Kiprop were a seasoned EPO taker since 2008 Olympics or before, as alleged, he would have easily avoided testing positive for EPO in his urine, given the fact that he had about 5 days notice that he would be tested, and EPO clears overnight. Instead, for some it is preferable to believe that given 5 days notice, he was so surprised by the tester that he was "glowing" when the tester arrived, and that he needed to pay "tea money" to avoid the positive which in fact did not avoid the positive. You can't make this stuff up.
rEPO doesn't clear "overnight"...where did you get that from?
One dose of 2nd gen "NESP" is detectable up to 7 days. One dose of regular rEPO - or 1st gen rEPO - is detectable up to 3 days!
To reproduce a potential doping scenario, a 2 week administration of recombinant erythropoietin (rEPO) microdoses alone or in combination with growth hormone (GH) microdoses (three times a week) was performed on healthy and a...
Just face it - Kiprop doper got caught with his pants down on OOC target test. Lol. He wasn't too big to fail.
Why you keep defending these Kenyan dopers is beyond me. Do you think because they're the world's greatest distance runners they're incapable of doping? 😆
Don't be so naive - some of the best Kenyan runners are doping.
I do not "deny doping" when it is backed by sufficient evidence.
I think this is the most pertinent quote in this discussion.
On the face of it, this seems like a very reasonable stance to take, but the problems start when we start looking at your threshold for what is enough evidence to show doping.
The vast majority of doping cases don't meet your threshold, you'll be defending people with positive tests saying they didn't even dope.
And the small number of cases that are irrefutable, i.e. the athlete themselves have admitted to doping, you claim there's zero evidence the doping actually helped.
So basically your standpoint is that hardly anyone dopes and those that do, don't benefit.
But when called on this, you go back to this quote again, saying your view on the subject is purely evidence based. But given the long history of doping in sport, if you don't accept anything you've seen so far as 'evidence' then nothing new that happens will be enough.
There must be very few problems for you then. Do you have specific examples in mind, beyond the two or three mentioned earlier? I do not generally doubt the vast majority of doping cases. I do not doubt positive tests for no reason, but only when there is some well documented tangible evidence or history of some irregularity, shortcoming, defect, or some other tangible factor that can undermine the conclusions and causes me to doubt.
For me the problems start when looking at everyone else's thresholds. Many of the discussions are more of the type where there is a gap in the evidence that requires some leap of faith. For example, the case of fast single outlier athletes like El G or Paula. Or suggesting that Kiprop doped way back in 2008 due to a positive result in 2017. Or Mary Decker doped in her prime due to a positive test when she was 37. Or that Rupp, Centrowitz, Ritz, Goucher, and every NOP athlete doped because Salazar was convicted for doping his sons. Or that Genzebe Dibaba doped because a Saudi physio and an athlete Balla had EPO in their rooms, while sharing a hotel with Jama Aden who organized the trip. Or that Kenya and Ethiopia were out doping the world as far back as the 1980s, when dominating the World in Cross Country. Etc.
I don't mix up performance discussions with doping discussions. I treat these as independent discussions decoupled from each other, lacking any showing of any strong correlation. If there is an irrefutable case, the guilt is the same for me (and for WADA) regardless of whether doping provided a benefit, or a hindrance.
Too bad they didn't have the Carbon Isotope Ratio (CIR) test back then - the only testing assay that can distinguish between synthetic plant-based testosterone vs naturally occurring cholesterol-based testosterone. But all they had was the T/E ratio which was set very high at 6:1
Now ratio is set at 4:1 - which will automatically trigger a CIR analysis. But an athlete who is in testing pool & subjected to the ABP won't have to breach the 4:1 ratio - just suspicious fluctuations on the ratio in passport will result in target testing with CIR.
If it wasn't for CIR test, Gatlin would have never been caught for exogenous testosterone use. The CIR test has been the game changer in combating against the use of synthetic testosterone:
Yes -- real bad for her, and all others convicted based on the bad science of the day.
If you want more insight from contemporaneous legal critiques about anti-doping due process before WADA, and how they were addressed after WADA, with details regarding Slaney's case, and the series of delays and injustices that she suffered, here is a good link:
Just face it - Kiprop doper got caught with his pants down on OOC target test. Lol. He wasn't too big to fail.
Why you keep defending these Kenyan dopers is beyond me. Do you think because they're the world's greatest distance runners they're incapable of doping? 😆
Don't be so naive - some of the best Kenyan runners are doping.
Ah yes. Typical letsrun. In one page, I was shockingly accused of defending only white English speakers, and in the next page, you say I keep defending these Kenyan dopers.
The "overnight" comes from USADA's affidavit of George Hincapie being advised to inject EPO in the vein: "I understood from Dr. Ferrari that if taken this way that EPO should clear the system and not be detectable within 12 hours."
Your first paper says "subcutaneous" injections, so not injected in the vein.
Your second paper was published Jan. 2021, so unlikely availble in 2017 for Kiprop's test.
I do not doubt that the world's greatest distance runners are capable of doping and that some of the best Kenyan runners are doping.
My doubts expressed here about Kiprop's EPO positive test result do not stem from the fact that he was great, or Kenyan, but from an earlier pattern of documented issues with the WADA Labs execution and interpretation of the EPO urine test results, published by Prof. Erik Boye, and the details of the cases of Vojtěch Sommer, Steven Colvert, and Benedikt Karus.
The Hincapie stuff is BS. Because of the initial EPO test was very effective IC, Ferrari switch Postal exclusively over to blood doping starting with the 2000 Tour (Postal last used EPO IC in the 99 Tour - Armstrong's first Tour win in his comeback from cancer). You can listen to Armstrong further explain this in his recent interview with Peter Attia (@ 1:38:00 in):
View podcast show notes page: https://bit.ly/3JiqBTMBecome a member to receive exclusive content: https://bit.ly/3JsI4JaSign up to receive Peter's email news...
Correct on the first paper: subcutaneous injections with EPO is how EPO is generally taken - and used in this fashion in a clinical setting. Intravenous injections are not advised by any competent doctor as they're very dangerous. The vast majority of EPO dopers administer it with intramuscular injections.
And there you go again second guessing WADA testing assays just like you've second guessed the ABP when involves someone other than a Russian athlete. Lol
You & I go way back in arguing over your character of questioning & defending Kenyan doping cases. Do you remember page after page, thread after thread of me, "casual obsever," "Subway Surfer," etc, debating ad nuseam some of these high-profile Kenyan doping cases?
From Kiprop to Kiptum to Rosario to Sumgong to Jeptoo - you relentlessly questioned many times - not only the validity of the test/ABP anomalies - but whether or not PEDs, particularly 02-vector doping, even enhanced their performance. Your reputation if defending Kenyan dopers precedes you...nothing new there.
No, you defend yourself constantly. Either an obvious troll of just plain obvious...
Probably because I'm being attacked constantly. Calling me a troll is just one more of these unwarranted attacks. I suppose it is because you can do no better.
Because those are the cases I have seen you discuss the most. Your self-chosen Kenyan examples are interestingly different: here you don't throw any doubt onto the correctness of their judgments, f.ex arguing that their ridiculous excuses are actually the truth or that you have "lingering questions about..." lol.
What a wild contrast to Decker ("bad science and bad law"; "IF it is true that Mary took Testosterone) and Houlihan") ("I have a lot of lingering questions about the evidence presented, the evidence not presented, and some of the decisions made"; "IF it is really" lol lol lol)...
But yes, that "Kiprop got slower in 2016 and 2017" is also a good example for your doping apologism, trying to decrease his guilt (as if doping didn't help him lol) and furthermore completely irrelevant and obfuscating because you have no idea when he started doping.
Just to recap, Coe and Radcliffe didn't dope, so it's hard to see how I can be a doping apologist for these two examples. That's just two out of four examples that were instant fails.
And you must not have been paying close attention when I talked about Kiprop. I'm not all that sure that Kiprop ever took EPO at all, given the difficulty of the WADA Labs to interpret this EPO test result correctly, and the history of mistakes and the difficulty for the athletes to challenge the raw test results of the WADA Labs. This is based on detailed investigations done and written up by Prof. Erik Boye, and the details of the cases of Vojtěch Sommer, Steven Colvert, and Benedikt Karus. I would need to see an unretouched photo of the WADA Lab results to see if there wasn't obvious bleeding from the next lanes coming from EPO controls rather than Kiprop's sample.
What's even more strange is that if Kiprop were a seasoned EPO taker since 2008 Olympics or before, as alleged, he would have easily avoided testing positive for EPO in his urine, given the fact that he had about 5 days notice that he would be tested, and EPO clears overnight. Instead, for some it is preferable to believe that given 5 days notice, he was so surprised by the tester that he was "glowing" when the tester arrived, and that he needed to pay "tea money" to avoid the positive which in fact did not avoid the positive. You can't make this stuff up.
Or how about when I point out that Kenyans do not routinely castrate their pigs, which might explain the many Kenyan nandrolone positives. Again, I recall Prof. Ross Tucker estimates that it would take 6 months and low to mid 6 figures to defend against such charges. Which Kenyan can afford that? Do they even have a way to trace back pigs purchased from the market? Imagine having to defend yourself against a seasoned AIU team with its experts without speaking English or French.
I don't see discussions about doping related performance, or lack thereof, as attempting to "decrease his guilt", or as "a good example of doping apologism". For me, like WADA, guilt is the same regardless of whether the athlete runs faster, slower, or doesn't even race. How do you think OOC positives (like Houlihan's) work?
If these are your best examples, then that only underscores that "doping apologism" is simply the wrong description. But it sure triggers a lot of emotion.
To be frank, nothing in my posts can be honestly or intellectually construed as defending or apologizing for intentional acts of doping, attempting to gain some performance advantage either directly or indirectly, against the WADA rules. It has to be one of the dumbest baseless myths among all the other myths, among those who struggle to support their own strongly and longly held beliefs with arguments and factual support.
You never see intentional doping. Which also means you never see doping. If somehow they did dope it never worked for them. You don't need to write endless paragraphs reiterating these points; everything else is window-dressing. Your position as the resident doping-apologist is unchallengeable.
I do not "deny doping" when it is backed by sufficient evidence.
I think this is the most pertinent quote in this discussion.
On the face of it, this seems like a very reasonable stance to take, but the problems start when we start looking at your threshold for what is enough evidence to show doping.
The vast majority of doping cases don't meet your threshold, you'll be defending people with positive tests saying they didn't even dope.
And the small number of cases that are irrefutable, i.e. the athlete themselves have admitted to doping, you claim there's zero evidence the doping actually helped.
So basically your standpoint is that hardly anyone dopes and those that do, don't benefit.
But when called on this, you go back to this quote again, saying your view on the subject is purely evidence based. But given the long history of doping in sport, if you don't accept anything you've seen so far as 'evidence' then nothing new that happens will be enough.
You are very polite about it but you are describing a doping-denier.
I do. The first applies to your head. The second applies to your posts. Taken together they say you're another moron.
The two words were concrete and example.
A concrete example for rekrunner's claimed "doping apologism".
"The thread. Everything he posts." is not a concrete example.
It is. The posts are there for anyone to read. But they do require an ability to read between the lines of semantic bs, obfuscation and selective presentation of facts and even outright falsehoods. There are posters who have in the last couple of pages exposed the denialism in his posts. I have read his posts for years. At one level they present an alternative reality; at another they are ultimately a form of lying, an avoidance of inconvenient truths.
I do not "deny doping" when it is backed by sufficient evidence.
I think this is the most pertinent quote in this discussion.
On the face of it, this seems like a very reasonable stance to take, but the problems start when we start looking at your threshold for what is enough evidence to show doping.
The vast majority of doping cases don't meet your threshold, you'll be defending people with positive tests saying they didn't even dope.
And the small number of cases that are irrefutable, i.e. the athlete themselves have admitted to doping, you claim there's zero evidence the doping actually helped.
So basically your standpoint is that hardly anyone dopes and those that do, don't benefit.
But when called on this, you go back to this quote again, saying your view on the subject is purely evidence based. But given the long history of doping in sport, if you don't accept anything you've seen so far as 'evidence' then nothing new that happens will be enough.
This perfect summary of Rekrunner should be our last word on him. We should all ignore him from this point onwards. But of course we won't, myself included.
I think this is the most pertinent quote in this discussion.
On the face of it, this seems like a very reasonable stance to take, but the problems start when we start looking at your threshold for what is enough evidence to show doping.
The vast majority of doping cases don't meet your threshold, you'll be defending people with positive tests saying they didn't even dope.
And the small number of cases that are irrefutable, i.e. the athlete themselves have admitted to doping, you claim there's zero evidence the doping actually helped.
So basically your standpoint is that hardly anyone dopes and those that do, don't benefit.
But when called on this, you go back to this quote again, saying your view on the subject is purely evidence based. But given the long history of doping in sport, if you don't accept anything you've seen so far as 'evidence' then nothing new that happens will be enough.
This perfect summary of Rekrunner should be our last word on him. We should all ignore him from this point onwards. But of course we won't, myself included.
"our" last word?
I don't want to ignore him since for me he is one of the best posters on this board. He also is not right all the time, but at least he tries to back up his view with all the available data.
The Hincapie stuff is BS. Because of the initial EPO test was very effective IC, Ferrari switch Postal exclusively over to blood doping starting with the 2000 Tour (Postal last used EPO IC in the 99 Tour - Armstrong's first Tour win in his comeback from cancer). You can listen to Armstrong further explain this in his recent interview with Peter Attia (@ 1:38:00 in):
Correct on the first paper: subcutaneous injections with EPO is how EPO is generally taken - and used in this fashion in a clinical setting. Intravenous injections are not advised by any competent doctor as they're very dangerous. The vast majority of EPO dopers administer it with intramuscular injections.
And there you go again second guessing WADA testing assays just like you've second guessed the ABP when involves someone other than a Russian athlete. Lol
You & I go way back in arguing over your character of questioning & defending Kenyan doping cases. Do you remember page after page, thread after thread of me, "casual obsever," "Subway Surfer," etc, debating ad nuseam some of these high-profile Kenyan doping cases?
From Kiprop to Kiptum to Rosario to Sumgong to Jeptoo - you relentlessly questioned many times - not only the validity of the test/ABP anomalies - but whether or not PEDs, particularly 02-vector doping, even enhanced their performance. Your reputation if defending Kenyan dopers precedes you...nothing new there.
I recognize your unique style of bolding and italics and acronyms and linking to many pubmed articles and use of emojis.
So you are saying Lance still used EPO OOC. And you said Kiprop's test was OOC. Why do you say "The vast majority of EPO dopers administer it with intramuscular injections."?
I made a mistake above -- Kiprop had 6 days notice when he started exchanging texts with the tester. But let's pretend he was a veteran doper since before 2008 Olympics that showed up "glowing" for a test with a surprisingly short 6 days notice, and bribed the tester for hiding a test result that wasn't hidden.
Am I second guessing "WADA testing assays"? I'm not really sure what that even means. I think I made it clear that Prof. Erik Boye is the one second guessing the correct execution and interpretation of the tests by WADA Labs, with documents and data and pictures and graphs backing it all up. Apparently it is a difficult test to get right, and it is even more difficult for accused athletes to have access to the raw data being used to convict them in order to mount the defense they need. One athlete had to pay for the data. Another got the exculpatory results only after the conviction.
Have I ever second guessed the ABP? I don't recall second guessing the ABP or questioning the validity of it, only for non-Russians. Do you have an example? The general principle seems sound. But it does sound like me to ask questions about the data behind whatever wild claims may have come up over time in various threads.
I'm still gobsmacked at being accused out of nowhere of only "defending" white English speaking dopers (not to mention that 2 out of 4 of the best examples were never charged with doping), and now here you are saying my "reputation if (sic) defending Kenyan dopers precedes you...nothing new there."
But again, labelling me as "defending dopers", whether Kenyan or white English speaker, or as a "doping apologist", are clear misnomers obviously meant to avoid genuine discussion, preferably backed up by real data, and instead demonize the messenger, asking tough questions, or finding contradictory data, or generally poking at baseless myths.
I don't ever question whether PEDs are drugs that are performance enhancing -- that is a trivial tautology. That would be like questioning whether RBCs are blood cells that are red. Or whether UFOs are flying objects that are unidentified.
Too bad they didn't have the Carbon Isotope Ratio (CIR) test back then - the only testing assay that can distinguish between synthetic plant-based testosterone vs naturally occurring cholesterol-based testosterone. But all they had was the T/E ratio which was set very high at 6:1
Now ratio is set at 4:1 - which will automatically trigger a CIR analysis. But an athlete who is in testing pool & subjected to the ABP won't have to breach the 4:1 ratio - just suspicious fluctuations on the ratio in passport will result in target testing with CIR.
Huh. Somehow rekrunner failed to mention that it was 6 : 1 back then, not 4 : 1 as now.
And let me guess. Since he didn't whine that she was barely above 6 : 1, she was likely way above the threshold like 8 : 1 or even higher??
I don't want to ignore him since for me he is one of the best posters on this board. He also is not right all the time, but at least he tries to back up his view with all the available data.
"all the available data"??? LOL. No he doesn't. He only sees data that might help the dopers, often taken out of context with his spin added (e.g. calling an appeal "double jeopardy" - see yesterday), ignoring the data that led to the bans of the dopers. Then he sides with the authorities when they were pro doper (USATF here, that infamously hid over 100 positives at that time!) over the neutral IAAF that banned the doper.
He just demonstrated that again. Or look into any of the current or old Shelburrito threads for more demonstrations, where he tries - since spring 2021!!!! - to discredit all the experts who showed how ridiculous the burrito excuse is.
I think this is the most pertinent quote in this discussion.
On the face of it, this seems like a very reasonable stance to take, but the problems start when we start looking at your threshold for what is enough evidence to show doping.
...
This perfect summary of Rekrunner should be our last word on him. We should all ignore him from this point onwards. But of course we won't, myself included.
But again, labelling me as "defending dopers", whether Kenyan or white English speaker, or as a "doping apologist", are clear misnomers obviously meant to avoid genuine discussion, preferably backed up by real data, and instead demonize the messenger, asking tough questions, or finding contradictory data, or generally poking at baseless myths.
More LOL. Those aren't misnomers at all. "backed up by real data" like an ABP or a positive test and a ban for intentional doping, confirmed by CAS? If that isn't real data for you, then any discussion with you is pointless.
"I don't ever question whether PEDs are drugs that are performance enhancing -- that is a trivial tautology."
It may be a tautology but what you consistently deny is that drugs are performance enhancing as a fact. You repeatedly insist that athletes only "believe" drugs are performance enhancing, which in your terminology equates with mere superstition and not fact - so you liken it to a religious belief, an article of faith. Because you therefore imply the effects of doping are all in the mind you suggest drugs may have a placebo effect - which is consistent with your position that athletes "believe" the drugs will aid them. But you never concede drugs used by athletes will physically enhance performance - and especially for distance runners, and Kenyans above all. (You do make a lonely exception for Russian women middle-distance runners on steroids to show you aren't really a doping denier. You don't care about them.) You hold to this position because no doped elite athletes have been obliging enough to engage in academic studies to show the effects of doping (which is the only "data" you are prepared to recognise outside your historical studies of performance), and you discount any anecdotal evidence for the effects of doping, which includes the years of doping conducted by innumerable athletes. You even seek to enjoin WADA to your doping denial, by trying to maintain WADA doesn't know if drugs enhance performance because it bans drugs for a "potential" to enhance performance and not a proven effect, when that is simply a position WADA adheres to so that it doesn't have to prove a banned drug aided the performance of any given athlete.
So in one sentence we see your method. It is to say one thing to actually mean its opposite, through the use of semantic games ("tautology") while leaving out the reasons you have previously iterated that show you in fact hold a contrary view to what you appear to be saying, and above all you omit any evidence that doesn't fit your fixed position that doping does not as an actual fact enhance athletic performance in elite athletes and especially distance runners.
So through misrepresentations, semantic word games, and the omitting of evidence that doesn't suit you are able to maintain a position on doping that is of dogmatic denial while presenting yourself as the very model of the voice of open-mindedness and reason. You do this in virtually every post and you have done so for years on those boards. Nothing and no one has changed the song you sing.
Many posters of limited intellectual sophistication are taken in by your act, but for those who aren't it is risible. Not only is it intellectually inept it is palpably dishonest. You are seeking to conceal your act through endless word mists. It is the method of a liar but heavily disguised.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
