"Over the years, you yourself have conceded the estimated extent ranges from 10% to 80%."
You are wrong, as you always are. I have said that WADA has said the absolute lowest limit for doping at professional level will be 10% but could be as high as 40%. The 80% estimate came from others involved in antidoping who were referring to Olympic level competition. Some - like Victor Conte - say everybody at the top level of Olympic sport dopes. 1-2% is clearly far from the actual levels of doping. We also know this from confidential athlete surveys.
There is also no way that you can minimise doping in running, since WADA has grouped t and f with cycling, bodybuilding and weightlifting for risk of doping - and these sports are amongst the worst offenders. Any highly physical sport will benefit from doping - and distance running is above all a physical sport. It is why so many Kenyans have doped, as we see from their numbers of violations. But their doping is relatively amateurish since they aren't very good at getting away with it. Most others are.
So, in other words, you did narrow it down to somewhere between 10%-80%. I recall Howman said "over 10%" was a "guesstimate" at the time, rather than "absolute lowest limit for doping". At the same time, Dick Pound said "four out of five cheats are not being caught". Doing that math, with WADA's 1-2% positive tests, this results in 4%-10%.
The fact is that no one can say who is right, because even the accuracy of all these various guesstimates is still a guesstimate. The uncertainty increases the further the guesstimate is from the 1-2% that is known. For distance running, we can only guess if the extent of doping is below, above, or at the average of "t & f", which includes sprints, throws, jumps, and walking. And we can only guess if "t & f" is below, or above, or average.
To promote these guesses to right answers requires better data.
I think it's the discovery of HIF stabilizers combined with hypoxia and training. The EPO test was updated in 2022 and 2024, so athletes switched and then discovered other benefits (capillary density) besides producing EPO in the kidneys.
I think it's the discovery of HIF stabilizers combined with hypoxia and training. The EPO test was updated in 2022 and 2024, so athletes switched and then discovered other benefits (capillary density) besides producing EPO in the kidneys.
HIF stabilizers have been around for a while, and banned by WADA since 2011, so not all that new.
You mentioned before "research and WADA documents" -- what does the research say about HIF stabilizers and peak distance running performance, say relative to altitude training?
Imagine running 26:52 and be fresh enough to run 26:52 once again with no stop and then some more lol
Have you heard of talent? Daniel Komen was able to run his first ever 5000m in 13:30 without ‘official training’. 26:52 isn’t fast. I suspect your are referencing Fisher’s season best of 26:52 last year to shame him? Now you see how Fisher can never compete with Kiplimo except if he takes drugs which he did?
You are naive about the extent of doping in the sport, as well as being racially fixated. There isn't only one race or group of competitors who dope. Your favorites do also.
You are no less naive about the extent of doping in the sport (which sport exactly?).
While we can be reasonably sure the extent of doping is more than 1-2% of positive tests, how much more is still anybody's guess. Over the years, you yourself have conceded the estimated extent ranges from 10% to 80%.
We can also be reasonably sure that the extent of intentional doping for performance is less than the combined extent of unintentional plus intentional doping.
One logical step you fail to take is that if we assume, like you say, that all races and groups of competitors are doping, and some races or groups are consistently outperforming the others, the observed performance differences between different races and groups cannot be explained by doping. To insist doping is still a good explanation for performances which are to date far beyond the achievements of some races and groups, we must introduce a load of other assumptions, e.g. that some races and groups are not doping; or that some races and groups dope more frequently with higher doses; or that some races and groups have found new drugs; etc. These are all new hypotheses formed post-hoc without any basis, which must next be confirmed or denied with data, evidence, and controlled observations.
Your reply here is just we conjecture as all the rest I have read. Your deference back to data is in and of itself formed post-hoc with also a partial basis as it’s still an opinion formed on top of another one. No one can be neutral on this board however much they paint themselves to be. In fact the harder they paint themselves as neutral that is inherently a partial pursuit. Sorry I don’t buy yours any more than armstrongliv.
Jakob's fans must livid to see Kiplimo set a world record that Mr Time Trial won't be able to get near.
This is a good point, I'm not actually sure Jakob can get this record now. This is pretty far out there and would take an extraordinary effort to break it.
Since the shoes haven't changed in that time and neither has training that leaves drugs. They are being developed all the time but crucially that involves masking so that athletes can use them with small risk of being caught.
You are no less naive about the extent of doping in the sport (which sport exactly?).
While we can be reasonably sure the extent of doping is more than 1-2% of positive tests, how much more is still anybody's guess. Over the years, you yourself have conceded the estimated extent ranges from 10% to 80%.
We can also be reasonably sure that the extent of intentional doping for performance is less than the combined extent of unintentional plus intentional doping.
One logical step you fail to take is that if we assume, like you say, that all races and groups of competitors are doping, and some races or groups are consistently outperforming the others, the observed performance differences between different races and groups cannot be explained by doping. To insist doping is still a good explanation for performances which are to date far beyond the achievements of some races and groups, we must introduce a load of other assumptions, e.g. that some races and groups are not doping; or that some races and groups dope more frequently with higher doses; or that some races and groups have found new drugs; etc. These are all new hypotheses formed post-hoc without any basis, which must next be confirmed or denied with data, evidence, and controlled observations.
Your reply here is just we conjecture as all the rest I have read. Your deference back to data is in and of itself formed post-hoc with also a partial basis as it’s still an opinion formed on top of another one. No one can be neutral on this board however much they paint themselves to be. In fact the harder they paint themselves as neutral that is inherently a partial pursuit. Sorry I don’t buy yours any more than armstrongliv.
Since he denies improvements through doping and I say doping is indispensable to these performances, what alternatives are you left with?
"Over the years, you yourself have conceded the estimated extent ranges from 10% to 80%."
You are wrong, as you always are. I have said that WADA has said the absolute lowest limit for doping at professional level will be 10% but could be as high as 40%. The 80% estimate came from others involved in antidoping who were referring to Olympic level competition. Some - like Victor Conte - say everybody at the top level of Olympic sport dopes. 1-2% is clearly far from the actual levels of doping. We also know this from confidential athlete surveys.
There is also no way that you can minimise doping in running, since WADA has grouped t and f with cycling, bodybuilding and weightlifting for risk of doping - and these sports are amongst the worst offenders. Any highly physical sport will benefit from doping - and distance running is above all a physical sport. It is why so many Kenyans have doped, as we see from their numbers of violations. But their doping is relatively amateurish since they aren't very good at getting away with it. Most others are.
So, in other words, you did narrow it down to somewhere between 10%-80%. I recall Howman said "over 10%" was a "guesstimate" at the time, rather than "absolute lowest limit for doping". At the same time, Dick Pound said "four out of five cheats are not being caught". Doing that math, with WADA's 1-2% positive tests, this results in 4%-10%.
The fact is that no one can say who is right, because even the accuracy of all these various guesstimates is still a guesstimate. The uncertainty increases the further the guesstimate is from the 1-2% that is known. For distance running, we can only guess if the extent of doping is below, above, or at the average of "t & f", which includes sprints, throws, jumps, and walking. And we can only guess if "t & f" is below, or above, or average.
To promote these guesses to right answers requires better data.
You never stop lying. Howman never said 10% was an upper limit. He said it had to be at least that but could also be 40%. When asked about the incidence of doping at the 2012 Olympics he said it was probably not as high as 90% (as commentators like Conte had suggested) but would be more than 10% - "somewhere in between". So that is easily as high as 50% of athletes, if not more. Pound was not giving a numerical figure of dopers, he was saying most dopers aren't caught - he reiterated that "only the dumb and the careless" are caught. That isn't 20% of dopers as you claim. Athletes aren't that dumb and that careless.
WADA groups t and f with cycling, bodybuilding and weightlifting for risk of doping. We know that none of those sports would exist without doping. Nothing suggests distance running isn't at the same level of doping risk.
For someone who claims there is insufficient data to draw firm inclusions about the incidence of doping you have no difficulties in seeking to draw conclusions that put the prevalence of doping at a level of only the most minor significance. If your views were accepted as credible doping would be no more serious than the consumption of popcorn.
You always contradict yourself, just as you never stop lying about this subject. Your denial is absolutely indispensable to the practice of doping. It doesn't exist if we refuse to see it - like you do.
'In Uganda's case, WADA also identified contradictions between its national legislation and the World Anti-Doping Code. After a period of monitoring, the irregularities were not corrected, so on 13 January, WADA issued formal notices of non-compliance to the three entities'
How are the shoes being worn by Fisher, Ingebrigtsen and Kiplimo different from the so-called supershoes introduced some years ago?
Drugs are constantly being innovated which is why WADA cannot keep pace with the dopers. Many peds are medicines or medicine based and the practice of medicine is always seeking to progress.
For one, Fisher and Ingebrigtsen run on the track with superspikes, while Kiplimo runs on the road with supershoes.
Nike first introduced the Vaporfly, and then the Next %, and then the Alphafly, both of which get updated each year. Both the Vaporfly 3 and Alphafly 3 are available now. Following their initial lead of combining advanced resilient lightweight foam with a stiff carbon fiber plate, Adidas, Asics, Brooks, Hoka, NewBalance, Puma, Saucony and even Under Armour now have their own versions. There are many parameters to play with starting with choosing and updating the advanced material for the foam, foam cell shape, the stack height, the shape and form of the carbon fiber, half-carbon versus full-carbon versus split carbon versus carbon rods, the uppers, the overall shoe weight, etc.
This doesn't begin to explain the selection of superspikes for the track which have become available a few years after the first supershoes, with its own combination of carbon fiber, and foam and smaller stack height.
Once the game changed with this new combination of resilient lightweight foam and carbon fiber, it is just a matter of time before there are enough opportunities for today's and tomorrow's athletes to shatter the previous records.
This is not only idle speculation, as there are several dozens of studies that have measured the increased efficiency provided by the new shoes.
But I would ask you the same question -- please explain what are the newest known drugs and drug innovations, and how the drugs available today are different from just a few years ago, say before the supershoe era? What were the latest drug innovations, and moreover, where is the supporting research demonstrating the impact on elite middle and distance running performance? And why is it that many of the drugs athletes are getting busted for today are not new and innovative, but rather developed decades ago.
Both road shoes and super spikes have been available for some years. Why is it a "matter of time" before their benefits were observable? The effect of the shoes should be immediate if they offer any advantage. It is like a new golf driver; it either hits further or it doesn't.
Is it being claimed anywhere by experts that it is a new model of shoe that has enable Kiplimo, Fisher and Ingebrigtsen to break wrs in the last couple of weeks?
You have no idea how drugs are developed. It is a process that occurs continuously with pharmaceuticals and medicine, as many of the drugs adopted as peds have a medical function before sports have seen they can also benefit athletes, and particularly when used as part of a "cocktail". It is you who are buried in the past, thinking drugs last evolved in the '70's. What is worn on athletes' feet is a crude and simple tool compared with chemicals that change how their bodies function.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Has Kiplimo been running in shoes no one else has?
it's been documented that some respond to the shoes better than others. and by significant amounts.
So has he only just cottoned on to using the new shoes? If he has been wearing them from when they were made available why hasn't he been setting comparable records in the last several years? Maybe he's a great "responder" to something else.
it's been documented that some respond to the shoes better than others. and by significant amounts.
So has he only just cottoned on to using the new shoes? If he has been wearing them from when they were made available why hasn't he been setting comparable records in the last several years? Maybe he's a great "responder" to something else.
lol. idk, maybe he switched from vaporfly to alphafly? but you're right. drugs work the same way as shoes. some definitely respond better than others. good for kiplimo to be a super responder to both the shoes and the drugs.
Your reply here is just we conjecture as all the rest I have read. Your deference back to data is in and of itself formed post-hoc with also a partial basis as it’s still an opinion formed on top of another one. No one can be neutral on this board however much they paint themselves to be. In fact the harder they paint themselves as neutral that is inherently a partial pursuit. Sorry I don’t buy yours any more than armstrongliv.
Not sure what you are trying to say here, or what it is you think is wrong. I'm not trying to sell you anything about the extent. If you think I'm giving you post-hoc conjecture, feel free to disregard it. But it sounds like we are saying the same thing -- any guesstimate you see is somebody's guesstimate, rather than certain knowledge backed by reliable data. I'm reasonably certain that 1% is an under-estimate of the extent, but feel free to leave that opinion on the shelf.
You never stop lying. Howman never said 10% was an upper limit. He said it had to be at least that but could also be 40%. When asked about the incidence of doping at the 2012 Olympics he said it was probably not as high as 90% (as commentators like Conte had suggested) but would be more than 10% - "somewhere in between". So that is easily as high as 50% of athletes, if not more. Pound was not giving a numerical figure of dopers, he was saying most dopers aren't caught - he reiterated that "only the dumb and the careless" are caught. That isn't 20% of dopers as you claim. Athletes aren't that dumb and that careless.
WADA groups t and f with cycling, bodybuilding and weightlifting for risk of doping. We know that none of those sports would exist without doping. Nothing suggests distance running isn't at the same level of doping risk.
For someone who claims there is insufficient data to draw firm inclusions about the incidence of doping you have no difficulties in seeking to draw conclusions that put the prevalence of doping at a level of only the most minor significance. If your views were accepted as credible doping would be no more serious than the consumption of popcorn.
You always contradict yourself, just as you never stop lying about this subject. Your denial is absolutely indispensable to the practice of doping. It doesn't exist if we refuse to see it - like you do.
My denial is contained well within the spaces where you have no data. I never started lying, and do not contradict myself. It may appear that way as I quote different persons with wildly varying estimates, including you.
Who ever said "10% was an upper limit"? Howman said what I quoted: "over 10%". He called it a "guesstimate". Pound also said what I quoted: "four out of five cheats are not being caught" -- according to Pound and simple math, testing with 1%-2% positives, is ~20% effective.
I don't know if "WADA groups t and f with cycling, bodybuilding and weightlifting for risk of doping". You keep saying that in your own words, but never provide the quote and context to interpret what was really said in its proper perspective.
I can see why certain prevelance methods used to date might give significant overestimates from invalid assumptions, but for sure, without data, my best conclusion is that the extent is likely greater than those caught by the 1-2% positive tests. But I could be wrong. Since 1-2% represents the upper boundary of our data supported knowledge, there is no reason for me to prefer 50% over 5%, and plenty of reason to doubt the more extreme estimates that stray too far from what we know, based on arguments about how much we don't know.
Both road shoes and super spikes have been available for some years. Why is it a "matter of time" before their benefits were observable? The effect of the shoes should be immediate if they offer any advantage. It is like a new golf driver; it either hits further or it doesn't.
Is it being claimed anywhere by experts that it is a new model of shoe that has enable Kiplimo, Fisher and Ingebrigtsen to break wrs in the last couple of weeks?
You have no idea how drugs are developed. It is a process that occurs continuously with pharmaceuticals and medicine, as many of the drugs adopted as peds have a medical function before sports have seen they can also benefit athletes, and particularly when used as part of a "cocktail". It is you who are buried in the past, thinking drugs last evolved in the '70's. What is worn on athletes' feet is a crude and simple tool compared with chemicals that change how their bodies function.
Apparently, you have have no idea how drugs are developed either, but simply believe that all advancements are geared primarily to help athletes do what was impossible before, as if athletes are driving drugs R&D.
I didn't actually say "it is a matter of time before their benefits were observable", but "it is just a matter of time before there are enough opportunities for today's and tomorrow's athletes to shatter the previous records." Of course, among those who follow the sport and understand the value of numbers, we did see results right away, in 2016, when Kipchoge and Rupp and a few others wore the prototype Alphaflys. Recall in 2016, Kipchoge ran faster than Moses Mosops wind-aided Boston time, and a few months later Bekele ran faster than Kipchoge -- with times that seemed insane in 2011 when Mutai and Mosop scared 2:03. Since 2016, the record has plummeted from 2:03:05 to 2:00:35, and Mutai's unofficially wind-aided performance now ranks 22nd best.
Similarly in the half-marathon, Zersenay Tadese's half-marathon seemed untouchable from 2010 to 2018, and now he is ranked 23rd fastest performance. Before someone else says "what about Abraham Kiptum's "record"", who was busted for ABP. Does that suggest a new, more powerful drug? He was busted in 2018, after the Nairobi lab was opened, which means in 2010-2018, when there was little OOC blood testing, no one, not even the Kenyans, could better the Eritrean's performance.
There are many reasons record breaking performances take time, but largely because the prototypes were not available to all athletes at first, and races are not always run to set world records, but simply to win by running faster than 2nd place, or to qualify for something bigger. Since you know very little about athletics, besides the shoes, many other variables have to align and come together to produce record performances, including those athletes with talent peaking in their training, and having the right weather conditions -- especially for half-marathons and marathons, when the best conditions are in spring, and in fall.
The spikes came out a few years later, but again, we saw the impact immediately, as since then, runners from college to international elites, from all countries, and in virtually all track events longer than 1500m, collectively ran faster.
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.