How about Kejelcha and Tefera? Also, will Willis get his Gold for 2008?
How about Kejelcha and Tefera? Also, will Willis get his Gold for 2008?
rerrerre wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If Kipchoge is clean then he is at least 2-3% better than his rivals - a huge margin in professional sport - if they are also clean. If they are doping (and some undoubtedly are) he is likely to be 5-6% better than them. In this era, that simply isn't credible.
Geremew finished 18 seconds behind Kipchoge. That's not 2-3% nor 5-6%.
God, you are so annoying with your everyone is doping shit.
10 straight majors says Kipchoge is easily more than 1% better than his competition. They are effectively not even in the same race. It's hard to measure how much better he is than everyone else, he is so much better.
I don't say everyone is doping. WADA has relied on estimates between 15-40%. Some others studies put it in excess of 50%. Victor Conte has suggested as high as 90%. We are guessing the size of the submerged part of an iceberg. But the chances are that the top are most likely among the dopers. Billions are spent on doping in the black market. So who is doing all the buying? Club runners?
I wonder what the percentage would be when you factor in the phoney TUEs that some athletes obtain? (e.g. asthma meds, corticosteroids, pain killers, etc.).
Are those my quotes? Even I don't remember those. Kisorio was busted for steroids, and Erupe in an "out of competion" test, both in 2012. So that would have been wrong for a long time. "Being caught" is an indication of "prevalence". Prevalence is widespread because belief is widespread. You should turn that second quote around and make it less exclusive. Those that are past it, are tempted to dope to rediscover their former glory. But they are not the only ones.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Remember Rekrunner's "It's only women being caught" or his "Those being caught are past it" claims? He needs a new excuse.
As for the video lol, ...
I might not. The whole paragraph starts with "if".
Nice response wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If an outstanding athlete gains a 1% advantage by doping the results are much more conspicuous than the 1% gain by a middling athlete, who will still improve but not pose a threat to the best. Winning margins are typically small in elite and professional sport. For a top athlete, a1% gain can easily be the difference between winning and not placing.
+1
You might want to trying explaining that to rekrunner.
atrackandfieldfan wrote:
How about Kejelcha and Tefera? Also, will Willis get his Gold for 2008?
Willis will not get his gold from 2008, unless and until the IAAF changes its rules.
I hope Kejelcha and Tefera get caught. Don't forget Barega too. We can only hope the new WADA lab in Nairobi and the requirement for Olympic runners in Ethiopia must be tested at least 3 times a year will start to produce busts.
Seems beyond suspicious that Ethiopia is producing all these young stars again, all threatening to be even faster than Bekele, just when their neighbours are feeling the heat. All the EPO intended for pharmacies in Kenya, but where the market is now being closed, will end up in Ethiopia and elsewhere (such as Uganda).
Note that the IOC is in charge of Olympic medals and anti-doping the Olympics, and it is WADA who would have to change the rules.
Coevett wrote:
atrackandfieldfan wrote:
How about Kejelcha and Tefera? Also, will Willis get his Gold for 2008?
Willis will not get his gold from 2008, unless and until the IAAF changes its rules.
I hope Kejelcha and Tefera get caught. Don't forget Barega too. We can only hope the new WADA lab in Nairobi and the requirement for Olympic runners in Ethiopia must be tested at least 3 times a year will start to produce busts.
Seems beyond suspicious that Ethiopia is producing all these young stars again, all threatening to be even faster than Bekele, just when their neighbours are feeling the heat. All the EPO intended for pharmacies in Kenya, but where the market is now being closed, will end up in Ethiopia and elsewhere (such as Uganda).
rekrunner wrote:
Are those my quotes? Even I don't remember those.
Kisorio was busted for steroids, and Erupe in an "out of competion" test, both in 2012.
So that would have been wrong for a long time.
"Being caught" is an indication of "prevalence".
Prevalence is widespread because belief is widespread.
You should turn that second quote around and make it less exclusive.
Those that are past it, are tempted to dope to rediscover their former glory. But they are not the only ones.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Remember Rekrunner's "It's only women being caught" or his "Those being caught are past it" claims? He needs a new excuse.
As for the video lol, ...
Prevalence is widespread because the practice is widespread, not because there is a "belief" that doping is widespread. Its effects on users are also established and not merely notional. It is in all sports and we can gauge its depth by the fact that the black market for doping is in billions of Euros. We also know that only a fraction of users are being caught and this is reinforced by information reported by Aljazeera from anti-doping sources that there are over a hundred undetectable products currently available.
It is further a specious claim to suggest that athletes mainly dope to recover their past glory. Most dopers caught - such as Armstrong, Johnson, Jones et al - were at their peak. It is without foundation in fact to suggest that athletes will be principled in their prime yet prepared to cheat when past it. This is the casuistry of an apologist who seeks to minimise the problem.
I didn't say they believe doping is widespread. If that's what you understood, I can understand your response, but think it is based on poor comprehension on your part. Athletes/managers/coaches dope the athletes with hope based on a promise, because someone thinks it is necessary. They use many substances, regardless of proven effect -- hence the size of your "black market", as well as legal supplement markets. You keep appealing to "all sports" because you have too little real data on distance running. I would say it is rather naive to ignore doping prevalence among masters runners, and the temptation to slow the decline. But I don't exclude athletes in their prime, and tried to make "non-exclusivity" clear. Some doping is more "proven" than others, such as cycling and female sprinting. Johnson? I seek to put things in perspective, by separating knowledge from the fog, the myth, and the hype. High doping prevalence is a problem in and of itself.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Prevalence is widespread because the practice is widespread, not because there is a "belief" that doping is widespread. Its effects on users are also established and not merely notional. It is in all sports and we can gauge its depth by the fact that the black market for doping is in billions of Euros. We also know that only a fraction of users are being caught and this is reinforced by information reported by Aljazeera from anti-doping sources that there are over a hundred undetectable products currently available.
It is further a specious claim to suggest that athletes mainly dope to recover their past glory. Most dopers caught - such as Armstrong, Johnson, Jones et al - were at their peak. It is without foundation in fact to suggest that athletes will be principled in their prime yet prepared to cheat when past it. This is the casuistry of an apologist who seeks to minimise the problem.
rekrunner wrote:
Are those my quotes? Even I don't remember those.
Kisorio was busted for steroids, and Erupe in an "out of competion" test, both in 2012.
So that would have been wrong for a long time.
"Being caught" is an indication of "prevalence".
Prevalence is widespread because belief is widespread.
You should turn that second quote around and make it less exclusive.
Those that are past it, are tempted to dope to rediscover their former glory. But they are not the only ones.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Remember Rekrunner's "It's only women being caught" or his "Those being caught are past it" claims? He needs a new excuse.
As for the video lol, ...
Kisorio admitted later to talking epo when he was competing. If people listened to him then the current implosion would be of no surprise.
rekrunner wrote:
Athletes/managers/coaches dope the athletes with hope based on a promise, because someone thinks it is necessary.
We are getting closer. I'd say:
Athletes/managers/coaches dope the athletes, because experts know it is necessary to win.
We have experts, we have studies, and we have many success stories to prove that your "faith" or "hope" doesn't quite cut it.
Couple of references for just blood doping:
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0156157:
From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [29–31].
CAS Karamasheva hearing:
Moreover, EPO is typically taken as a course of many weeks, not as a single injection. Professer Schumacher explained that it can increase oxygen supply by 6% and take as much as one minute off the time taken to run 10,000 metres, and proportionately more over lesser distances
Sunday Times 2015, advised by Ashenden + Parisotto:
Experts say blood doping can improve the performance of a 5,000m runner by about 30 seconds – the difference between first place and last in the men’s final at London 2012. In the 10,000m the advantage could be more than a minute.
+1 on your citations.
Here's a couple more:
Ugarova CAS hearing:
Paragraph 103:
"103. In addition, importantly, the Sole Arbitrator notes that Sample 2 was taken on the eve of an important competition (i.e. the European Championship in Helsinki), whereas Sample 3, 4 and 5 were not taken in temporal vicinity to a competition. As testified by Dr. Schumacher, high HGB values enhance sporting performance. The Sole Arbitrator therefore finds that the coincidence of the fact that Sample 2 contained high HGB values, whereas Sample 3, 4 and 5 contained no such high levels, makes it indeed highly likely that the abnormal blood values in Sample 2 are to be explained by the use of prohibited substances or prohibited methods."
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_4463__internet_.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22374784
From the intro of the text:
"The capacity of the organism to transport oxygen to the working
muscle is a key factor for endurance performance.[1] For many
years, one of the prime targets of manipulating athletes was
therefore to improve the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood
as it offered gains in performance of 5–8%.[2] "
Coevett wrote:
atrackandfieldfan wrote:
How about Kejelcha and Tefera? Also, will Willis get his Gold for 2008?
Willis will not get his gold from 2008, unless and until the IAAF changes its rules.
I hope Kejelcha and Tefera get caught. Don't forget Barega too. We can only hope the new WADA lab in Nairobi and the requirement for Olympic runners in Ethiopia must be tested at least 3 times a year will start to produce busts.
Seems beyond suspicious that Ethiopia is producing all these young stars again, all threatening to be even faster than Bekele, just when their neighbours are feeling the heat. All the EPO intended for pharmacies in Kenya, but where the market is now being closed, will end up in Ethiopia and elsewhere (such as Uganda).
Keep dreaming and pretending!
Not going to dig up your exact quotes, but yes, those are absolutely the basic statements that you offered here. Your shifting rationales continue to shift. Nobody is surprised.
rekrunner wrote:
Are those my quotes? Even I don't remember those.
Kisorio was busted for steroids, and Erupe in an "out of competion" test, both in 2012.
So that would have been wrong for a long time.
"Being caught" is an indication of "prevalence".
Prevalence is widespread because belief is widespread.
You should turn that second quote around and make it less exclusive.
Those that are past it, are tempted to dope to rediscover their former glory. But they are not the only ones.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Remember Rekrunner's "It's only women being caught" or his "Those being caught are past it" claims? He needs a new excuse.
As for the video lol, ...
https://psmag.com/social-justice/speed-bumps-why-its-so-hard-to-catch-blood-dopers-in-track-and-fieldArmstronglivs wrote:
I don't say everyone is doping. WADA has relied on estimates between 15-40%. Some others studies put it in excess of 50%. Victor Conte has suggested as high as 90%. We are guessing the size of the submerged part of an iceberg. But the chances are that the top are most likely among the dopers. Billions are spent on doping in the black market. So who is doing all the buying? Club runners?
"Experts know it is necessary to win" sounds like something you would say. All these quotes and citations describing experts' knowledge -- I just can't get past all these weasel words like "can be estimated" and "may improve" and "up to" and "as much as" and "can improve". I think scientists still have some research to do to close the gap between their knowledge and your beliefs.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Athletes/managers/coaches dope the athletes with hope based on a promise, because someone thinks it is necessary.
We are getting closer. I'd say:
Athletes/managers/coaches dope the athletes, because experts know it is necessary to win.
We have experts, we have studies, and we have many success stories to prove that your "faith" or "hope" doesn't quite cut it.
Couple of references for just blood doping:
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0156157:
From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [29–31].
CAS Karamasheva hearing:
Moreover, EPO is typically taken as a course of many weeks, not as a single injection. Professer Schumacher explained that it can increase oxygen supply by 6% and take as much as one minute off the time taken to run 10,000 metres, and proportionately more over lesser distances
Sunday Times 2015, advised by Ashenden + Parisotto:
Experts say blood doping can improve the performance of a 5,000m runner by about 30 seconds – the difference between first place and last in the men’s final at London 2012. In the 10,000m the advantage could be more than a minute.
rekrunner wrote:
"Experts know it is necessary to win" sounds like something you would say.
All these quotes and citations describing experts' knowledge -- I just can't get past all these weasel words like "can be estimated" and "may improve" and "up to" and "as much as" and "can improve".
I think scientists still have some research to do to close the gap between their knowledge and your beliefs.
"weasel words", "beliefs", faith", "believe": keep dreaming/obfuscating. Scientists express themselves carefully in their papers, as you should know.
On the other hand, recall for example Ashenden's interview from 2015:
""Near impossible to compete against some of the blood values that I have evaluated."
rekrunner wrote:
"Experts know it is necessary to win" sounds like something you would say.
Just for you:
https://youtu.be/SbZ6Jiv91qcIf it were a true study finding, that helped constitute expert knowledge, the result would be expressed with much more certainty, e.g. by an average value or a range, with standard deviations, p-values, r-values, least squares fit equations, etc. Scientists are more cautious when they know that the study results they rely on may or may not apply when projected onto different populations in real world conditions. It would be more compelling if you could provide a more direct source. None of your quotes comes from a study that took a controlled look at elite performances. For the only quote that specifically mentioned elite performances, Malm said we could estimate elite benefits from the literature, and then points to literature that says we should not make such estimates for elite performance. Schumacher's statement in a CAS hearing is not a peer-reviewed finding, and it is not clear to what extent his estimate would apply to an athlete like Kiptum. Similarly, neither is the Sunday Times quote about what "experts say", nor is Ashenden's interview. These are not just my dreams. There are peer-reviewed studies by experts which call such expert knowledge of elite benefits into doubt: - Dutch researchers (doi: 10.1111/bcp.12034) conducted a literature review and found "This review shows that only very weak scientific evidence exists about the effects of rHuEPO on cycling performance in professional or even well-trained cyclists". - In a followup study (doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30105-9), cyclists in a time-trial up the Mont Ventoux did not perform better than a control group. They were actually slightly slower. - Also: (doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30123-0) "All athletes who take rHuEPO do not know what they are really doing; they know they cheat but they have no real, precise knowledge of its effects on endurance performance metrics." These studies looked specifically at cycling, but the same observations (or more accurately, the lack of observations) can be made for elite distance running performances, as demonstrated by the weakness of your citations. As a side note, there is a difference between expertise in anti-doping science and expertise in what it takes to win elite performances. While I would trust them (well not sure about Malm) to tell me if blood or urine is tainted, it is not clear that Malm, Schumacher, Ashenden, and Parisotto are sufficiently qualified to support your belief that "experts know doping is necessary to win". Also, with respect to Ashenden and Parisotto, we should just stick to their peer-reviewed quotes, as much of what they said publicly contradicted their own peer-reviewed research, something confirmed by the WADA-IC.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
"Experts know it is necessary to win" sounds like something you would say.
All these quotes and citations describing experts' knowledge -- I just can't get past all these weasel words like "can be estimated" and "may improve" and "up to" and "as much as" and "can improve".
I think scientists still have some research to do to close the gap between their knowledge and your beliefs.
"weasel words", "beliefs", faith", "believe": keep dreaming/obfuscating. Scientists express themselves carefully in their papers, as you should know.
On the other hand, recall for example Ashenden's interview from 2015:
""Near impossible to compete against some of the blood values that I have evaluated."
Let's Get To The Bottom Of This Kenyan Doping wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
"Experts know it is necessary to win" sounds like something you would say.
Just for you: