Olympic Marathon Silver Medalist Eunice Kirwa Busted for EPO Doping

JustThinking... wrote:

Could it be, that the reason (if its the case), that it affects elites less, is that they are already on the stuff ?

Canova has explained this.

A well-trained elite (training at altitude) will have already maximized the natural red blood cell production.

rekrunner wrote:

For what it's worth, I don't think I ever claimed Brits doped on a large scale.

As long time readers know, I don't believe Paula or Slow Mo doped.

The UK numbers are always small in any report I've ever seen about doping statistics by country in athletics.

Yep...that's definitely your standpoint on those two (though I think you have a soft heart for Paula? ?). And I can remember the pages & pages of debates you've had with casual over Paula's suspicious blood values.

Correct if I'm wrong; but you really don't suspect anyone of doping unless a) AAF positive test resulting in a ban, b) officially banned for an ABP violation or c) caught up in a doping scandal where the athlete admits to doping (e.g., Marion Jones).

Does this pretty much sum it up rekrunner?

I actually said "don't believe", which is the negation of "do believe". Where others believe, I don't believe. My basis for my lack of belief is a combination of facts that exist, and facts that do not exist to support a contrary view.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

For what it's worth, I don't think I ever claimed Brits doped on a large scale.

As long time readers know, I don't believe Paula or Slow Mo doped.

The UK numbers are always small in any report I've ever seen about doping statistics by country in athletics.

So you don't "believe" Paula or Mo doped? And I thought you only dealt in facts. But there's that word "belief" again.

Of course I knew a few things, based on past history. I knew Armstronglivs would not answer a question asking about knowledge. I knew eventually you would respond, and accuse me of trolling. You knew something important too, but did not share it. About this study, you lamented once: casual obsever wrote: "the differing RPEs from 15 to 16 are disappointing..." To make the point as simple as possible, for those who think I always "obfuscate" and ignore studies: These Kenyan runners didn't give it their best effort. The Kenyans did not race their time trials, but tempo-ed them at half-marathon to marathon pace. All of their time trials were well within their capability. Effort is not just my subjective biased opinion, but was measured in the study and published: The Kenyans ran with RPEs between 14.6 and 16.1, with some as low as 12-13. By comparison, the Scots, in a similar study, ran all of the time trials with RPEs around 18-19. The Scots tried to run fast -- the Kenyans did not. But maybe RPE is too subjective. To put the performances in objective perspective, I have to rely on performance equivalencies (I used Purdy for this exercise; VDOT also gives a similar prediction): On average 1:03/2:12 runners should be able to run 3000m time trials, on average, in 7:50. Yet the Kenyans ran the "clean" time trial in 9:23, and the "EPO improved" time trial in about 8:57, and the third one in 9:04. Their 5% improvement after EPO was still 12.5% slower then their predicted capability. To put this in a different perspective: Marathon pace for 2:12 is 3:08 min/km. Semi-marathon pace for 1:03 is 2:59 min/km. 10K pace is 2:50 min/km. 1:03/2:12 predicts a capability of 7:50, or 2:37 min/km pace over 3000m. They ran the first time trial, for 9:23 at 3:08 min/km pace, or marathon pace. Then they ran the post-EPO time trial for 8:57 at 2:59 min/km, or semi-marathon pace. The fastest Kenyan in the study ran 8:30 at 2:50 min/km, or 10K pace. They ran their last time trial for 9:04 at 3:01 min/km pace, slower than semi-marathon pace. To give one final perspective: Mary Cain ran 8:58, as an 18 year old, as fast as these near-elite 1:03/2:12 Kenyans under the full 5% improved influence of EPO. What would have been interesting, and would be way more compelling, is measuring the improved performance of these 7:50 capable runners when their first, pre-EPO time trial is 7:50. A 5% improvement would be sub-7:30. A 2% improvement would be 7:40. And a 1% improvement would be 7:45. As you said then, "disappointing - maybe next time!" This leads me back to the very same question: What *knowledge* do we gain about *elite performances*?

casual obsever wrote:

We learn for the, on average, 1:03/2:12 altitude-based runners that they improved by 5% right after getting EPO, pretty much like the slower Scots based at sea level. 4 weeks later, the improvement was "only" 3%.

But of course you knew that since several months, so yes, I got trolled again.

CONCLUSIONS:

Four weeks of rHuEpo increased the HGB and HCT of Kenyan endurance runners to a lesser extent than in SCO (~17% vs ~10%, respectively) and these alterations were associated with similar improvements in running performance immediately after the rHuEpo administration (~5%) and 4 wk after rHuEpo (~3%).

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

Correct if I'm wrong; but you really don't suspect anyone of doping unless a) AAF positive test resulting in a ban, b) officially banned for an ABP violation or c) caught up in a doping scandal where the athlete admits to doping (e.g., Marion Jones).

Even then he still pretends they could be clean, if they came up with an excuse. See e.g. Baumann's toothpaste, Decker's menopause, and Jeptoo's lack of representation:

rekrunner wrote:

Testo ban for Slaney — another can of worms; menopause hormone treatment; bad test no longer used;

rekrunner wrote:

We also know from the CAS ruling that Rita Jeptoo was not represented by herself, by counsel, or by Athletics Kenya, so whatever the IAAF argued went largely unchallenged.

The Mo and Paula comparison, brought up by rekrunner again, is a good one actually. Both used to get dropped during the last lap until age 26/27, then got suspicious help (Aden, Salazar - Healing Hans), turned into a superstar and then triggered even the generous threshold of the ABP -> likely doping.

And now they are Sir and Lady, protected by the Lord.

Paula still got dropped on the last lap on track just switched to marathon

uylyuil wrote:

Canova has explained this.

A well-trained elite (training at altitude) will have already maximized the natural red blood cell production.

No. Canova's point is that more red blood cells don't help because they cause a higher viscosity, which makes the transport to costly. Thus, the well-trained elite altitude athlete runs slower. He used Jeptoo as evidence for this, because she ran "slow" while doped in Chicago 2014. This ignores that she trashed the field during the last couple of miles, and that she PR'd (at age 33!) while doped in Boston 2014, again trashing the field at the end, this time with a course record.

That's when he came up with the conspiracy theory that she was clean in Boston 2014 (as discussed in this thread here again), and was banned anyway because of the pressure from the marathon majors organizers.

I didn't have a soft heart for Paula, but a strong mind for the ABP science, from scientists like Ashenden, Parisotto, and Schumacher, who told us how to interpret these suspicious values. I suspected the Chinese women doped without any of these criteria. Perhaps to make my opinions more clear, I don't think you can work fast times and medal wins, from non-busted athletes, backwards to conclude doping, even if science "proves" doping can lead to fast times and medal wins, even after many examples of doping busts. I think to do so is ruining the sport.

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

Yep...that's definitely your standpoint on those two (though I think you have a soft heart for Paula? ?). And I can remember the pages & pages of debates you've had with casual over Paula's suspicious blood values.

Correct if I'm wrong; but you really don't suspect anyone of doping unless a) AAF positive test resulting in a ban, b) officially banned for an ABP violation or c) caught up in a doping scandal where the athlete admits to doping (e.g., Marion Jones).

Does this pretty much sum it up rekrunner?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Paula still got dropped on the last lap on track just switched to marathon

Well... I still remember vividly her performance in Munich.

Plus, she also PR'd over 5000 after switching to the marathon.

That's a joke, right.

Ashenden and Parisotto:

While you called Paula's values both "not true" and "not real"...

Unfortunately the IAAF still fights against transparency despite their own words:

... Four years later, still waiting...

rekrunner wrote:

I actually said "don't believe", which is the negation of "do believe". Where others believe, I don't believe.

My basis for my lack of belief is a combination of facts that exist, and facts that do not exist to support a contrary view.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So you don't "believe" Paula or Mo doped? And I thought you only dealt in facts. But there's that word "belief" again.

It would actually help if you understood the English language a little better. But no matter, it still reveals the way you think. Inadequately. When you say you "don't believe" that Paula and Mo doped, that is the same as saying you believe that they didn't dope. Not believing something is the same as believing its negation. You don't believe the earth is flat = you believe the earth isn't flat. Either way, you are expressing belief or supposition, but not claiming knowledge. You can't claim to know - or you would be able to say that you "know" Paula and Mo

didn't dope, and provide proof of that. You can't. So, like anyone else, you can only form a view about it. An opinion. A belief.

So, you "don't believe" they doped (or alternatively, you believe they didn't dope). Whatever. You merely disagree with others about that. But in the end, however "scientific" you claim to be, you are simply another thinly disguised doping apologist. It comes through as loud and as clear as a Parisian street klaxon.

But for some strange reason it only appears to benefit sub-elites - so we are told - although elites continue to use it - which is even stranger.[/quote]

Why would EPO only benefit sub-elites? Since EPO stimulates red blood cell production, it’s not like it would be any different in an elite athlete, a sub-elite athlete, or a rando taking it for anemia. Blood is blood.[/quote]

Ah, what an inconvenient argument. For those who think it doesn't work on elites.[/quote]

Elites is such an arbitrary and nebulous term. What defines "elite"? What is the point at which it starts working? Such a silly argument. Physiology is physiology. Rocket fuel in a Toyota Corolla and rocket fuel in a Ferrari are both going to benefit.

No joke -- thanks to many excellent peer-reviewed papers by Ashenden, Parisotto, Schumacher, and many more, we learned all about many factors that could lead to false positives, and how to avoid them. Essentially, blood values don't exist for ABP purposes, if not collected, transported, stored, and tested according to ABP guidelines. That is not the same as extending a sanction. Four years later, who is still waiting? Not Dick Pound's independent review. The WADA IC reported receiving an official copy of the full database from the IAAF. This is public knowledge since Jan. 2016. No one else is still waiting.

I'm not passing my statement off as knowledge. I believe it's an intellectually low cop-out to resort to name-calling. Since Paula and Mo are not officially considered dopers, I don't see whose doping I'm supposedly apologizing for now.

C'mon, man. wrote:

But for some strange reason it only appears to benefit sub-elites - so we are told - although elites continue to use it - which is even stranger.

Why would EPO only benefit sub-elites? Since EPO stimulates red blood cell production, it’s not like it would be any different in an elite athlete, a sub-elite athlete, or a rando taking it for anemia. Blood is blood.[/quote]

Ah, what an inconvenient argument. For those who think it doesn't work on elites.[/quote]

Elites is such an arbitrary and nebulous term. What defines "elite"? What is the point at which it starts working? Such a silly argument. Physiology is physiology. Rocket fuel in a Toyota Corolla and rocket fuel in a Ferrari are both going to benefit.[/quote]

Too logical. Doesn't suit the doping apologists, who are like climate change deniers. As the ice melts under their feet, the deniers say, "what ice?" They can be correct and yet miss the point, at the same time. Elites don't dope, they say, because according to their definition of "elite", nobody who dopes can be elite. Wonderfully circular reasoning. EPO doesn't work on altitude athletes, they say, because thickened blood circulates more slowly (despite the concurrent application of blood thinners to prevent clots and heart attacks) and thus dispenses oxygen less efficiently than altitude training. Yet altitude trained athletes continue to use EPO's. It seems they prefer to go with results rather than pseudo-science. If altitude training is more efficient than doping, no Tour de France cyclist would see the need to dope. They could just train in the mountains. But, unsurprisingly, they still dope.

LoneStarXC wrote:

I got banned wrote:

and years and years i said 4%, but i mocked rek and renato.....thats a no no

-The poster formally known as m!ndweak

I remember you, m!ndweak! Why did you get banned?

why? sh*t who knows, its happened soooo many times.

- once for mocking vent, then again after he came back as calculo i mocked him and got banned

- once for calling a certain person "gary" and i was told that i cant say insulting things like that ( didnt realize "gary" was one of the banned words on here that are flagged)

- once because i was arguing with rek, and all my comments got deleted and i got pissed off about it

- once cause i brought up a certain mod admitted to using ROIDs

- once cause i DARED to mock renato and his "EPO doesnt work on kenyans", and was allowed back on when kiprop GOT BUSTED

- then this last time all i know was coevett was spreading rumors that i said i was going to shoot canova, coming from the guy that insults and badgers people almost as bad as vent used to and nothing happens to him. i complained and then next thing i know i was banned.

and classicly enough kenyans keep getting busted, the magical 4% improvement keeps coming up in research, now coevett acts as if he was the one who knows monaco is 2-3 seconds faster than EVERYWHERE else since 2010, when i have been saying it FOR YEARS.

so yeah why did i get banned? at this stage i could care less....its pretty pathetic how some people on here act like they are so bullied when THEY never get banned, NEVER get deleted and insult, verball assault, brag about how they have assaulted people in real life, say racist things etc and NEVER have anything happen to them, and on the opposite side people who are "hobby joggers" that claim they are the supreme authority on the medical properties and effects of pharmaceutically engineered enhancers....and both of these people demand respect without ever admitting who they are and give any credentials on WHY they are the authority, yet call me out to admit who i am, then threaten to come to colorado and kick my a$$. and all the while the brojos act oblivious to it and claim they have no idea how or why i get deleted and banned.

so yeah i dont even care to hear the why, im just patiently waiting for the big house of cards to fall one day and spill beans and see Rosa and Conova go home super devastated. im sure even then rek will have a 16 paragraph post after post denying EPO works, lolz

- the poster formally known as m!ndweak

casual obsever wrote:

No. Canova's point is that more red blood cells don't help because they cause a higher viscosity, which makes the transport to costly. Thus, the well-trained elite altitude athlete runs slower. He used Jeptoo as evidence for this, because she ran "slow" while doped in Chicago 2014. This ignores that she trashed the field during the last couple of miles, and that she PR'd (at age 33!) while doped in Boston 2014, again trashing the field at the end, this time with a course record.

That's when he came up with the conspiracy theory that she was clean in Boston 2014 (as discussed in this thread here again), and was banned anyway because of the pressure from the marathon majors organizers.

He claims he has actual evidence to support this theory, but when challenged to provide the data....crickets....

somehow rek buys into this belief, although there is no evidence at all to support it, not even evidence extrapolated from slower runners.

Name calling again combined with another strained analogy... Hamilton told us that clean riders could win 1 day tours, but that EPO helped the grand tours because you could push hard one day, and then push hard the next day. Similarly, a Dutch study (double-blinded, controlled) pitted EPO cyclists against control subjects, up the Mont Ventoux, and the EPO cyclists were not faster. If you want to talk about EPO and running results, talk about running results, with real examples, not the Tour de France, or climate change.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Too logical. Doesn't suit the doping apologists, who are like climate change deniers. As the ice melts under their feet, the deniers say, "what ice?" They can be correct and yet miss the point, at the same time. Elites don't dope, they say, because according to their definition of "elite", nobody who dopes can be elite. Wonderfully circular reasoning. EPO doesn't work on altitude athletes, they say, because thickened blood circulates more slowly (despite the concurrent application of blood thinners to prevent clots and heart attacks) and thus dispenses oxygen less efficiently than altitude training. Yet altitude trained athletes continue to use EPO's. It seems they prefer to go with results rather than pseudo-science. If altitude training is more efficient than doping, no Tour de France cyclist would see the need to dope. They could just train in the mountains. But, unsurprisingly, they still dope.

Anyone who constantly seeks to minimise the prevalence of doping and its effects on performance is an apologist. You remind me of those who strenuously defend the Catholic Church against allegations of abuse, by minimising the charges against it - despite one priest after another, and even an occasional Cardinal, being revealed as an abuser. Like athletes being busted for doping.