Sir, can you provide some sources which show that bio passport violations are a slam dunk? Do you think Rhonex, Brother O'Donnell and Professor Canova, among many others, would state the contrary to what you say? Rhonex has a choir boy reputation in ITEN, and these adulations at least hold some credibility.
Due diligence has not yet been accomplished, from what we can gather. Egregious fast track condemnation appears to have been undertaken. This kid's (R.K.) life has been seriously damaged, as well as that (lesser degree) of the affable Irish priest, (C.O'D), who overseas Rhonex's life, down to painstaking minutae.
Not saying that Rhonex is guiltless but rather that this whole affair has moved at breakneck pace resulting in defacto conviction and guilt in punter's eyes.
Thank you.
How about replacing "slam dunk" with "solid case" where the chances of the athlete's hematological anomalies being undoped is 1 in 10,000(99.99% specificity).
Every case that results in a ban is going to meet that criteria or they'll be no athlete banned for a hematological anomalies case.
Say for example, the athlete's anomalies are of a lesser specificity (1 in 1000, 1 in 100, etc) - that athlete will be target tested but there will be ban unless the case meets the 99.99% specificity. If the athlete is using an ESA then all they can hope for is that target testing will eventually catch the athlete. However, if the athlete is using transfusions, then they'll probably get away with doping. You really have to be doping to meet the 99.00% specificity.
Here's a case study for you: Kiptum's hearing when he was banned for hematological anomalies (click the "decision" icon to bring up the hearing):
One of his samples near the time he set the HM WR at Valencia had an extremely high HGB value of 20.3 & subsequent OFF-score of 148.30 - both values exceeding the respective upper 99.99% specificity level.
The expert anti-doping panel unanimously ruled that the high values could not be the result of physiological cause such as altitude training, hypoxia tent usage or any changes in plasma due to training/retraining or illness.
So, not slam dunk but very solid cases when it meets the 99.99% specificity.
With respect, 99.99% specificity is a slam dunk to me. The chances he isn't doping are infinitesimal.
The current standard for the passport analysis is a 1-in1,000 sensitivity, meaning the passport will only result in a false positive in 1 out of 1,000 analyses (over a series of samples, that means the risk of false positive becomes very, very low).
Kipruto is done.
Overlooking that you've mixed up sensitivity when you meant specificity (1 in 1000 sensitivity would be virtually useless and completely cost ineffective), all this talk about specificity is theoretical, based on a handful of ideal assumptions which may or may not be valid for each measurement. It falls apart in the presence of non-doping confounders (e.g. varying altitude or illness).
That is why the passport requires a final subjective assessment by "experts", and a data package that records all the relevant external data.
Rekrunner has to believe there isn't. His life would lose all meaning if there was.
On the contrary, I believe there is a reason -- that reason is "belief".
So all these thousands of sportsmen and women doping to the gills, and after 50 years, it just hasn't clicked with anybody that none of it works (other than a strange obsessive on LetsRun who has not even competed at any sport at a high level)?
I didn't say you made any claim. I made the claim that many of your doping worshipping allies have fallen for the fake moon landing conspiracies. I think this is no coincidence.
My approach to both topics is to ask what has actually been observed in reality? We can draw many conclusions based on real world observations. Lacking real world observations, we can speculate, but only then do we risk the departures from reality that you speak of.
Whenever I ask you for observations in reality, you avoid the question and say things like "since you aren't very bright" and rebut a point that wasn't made.
You don't make any "real world observations". You construct fantasies from selective facts and false arguments. You're the doping equivalent of a fake moon landing advocate.
I don't personally make "real world observations", but take a lot of data from official published sources of others who have. Sometimes this data deconstructs your fantasies from selective facts and false arguments.
On the contrary, I believe there is a reason -- that reason is "belief".
So all these thousands of sportsmen and women doping to the gills, and after 50 years, it just hasn't clicked with anybody that none of it works (other than a strange obsessive on LetsRun who has not even competed at any sport at a high level)?
What did these thousands of sportsmen and women say about their results?
The current standard for the passport analysis is a 1-in1,000 sensitivity, meaning the passport will only result in a false positive in 1 out of 1,000 analyses (over a series of samples, that means the risk of false positive becomes very, very low).
Kipruto is done.
Overlooking that you've mixed up sensitivity when you meant specificity (1 in 1000 sensitivity would be virtually useless and completely cost ineffective), all this talk about specificity is theoretical, based on a handful of ideal assumptions which may or may not be valid for each measurement. It falls apart in the presence of non-doping confounders (e.g. varying altitude or illness).
That is why the passport requires a final subjective assessment by "experts", and a data package that records all the relevant external data.
You don't make any "real world observations". You construct fantasies from selective facts and false arguments. You're the doping equivalent of a fake moon landing advocate.
I don't personally make "real world observations", but take a lot of data from official published sources of others who have. Sometimes this data deconstructs your fantasies from selective facts and false arguments.
So all these thousands of sportsmen and women doping to the gills, and after 50 years, it just hasn't clicked with anybody that none of it works (other than a strange obsessive on LetsRun who has not even competed at any sport at a high level)?
What did these thousands of sportsmen and women say about their results?
Since you are a complete moron you think dopers will publicly talk about what they got from their doping whereas the fact they dope and have done so for generations tells us they know what you don't about doping.
On the contrary, I believe there is a reason -- that reason is "belief".
So all these thousands of sportsmen and women doping to the gills, and after 50 years, it just hasn't clicked with anybody that none of it works (other than a strange obsessive on LetsRun who has not even competed at any sport at a high level)?
It takes narcissism of Olympian proportions to suggest, as he does, thousands of athletes with direct experience of doping know less about it and its effects than he does, who has no experience of it and has never used it.
This post was edited 51 seconds after it was posted.
How about replacing "slam dunk" with "solid case" where the chances of the athlete's hematological anomalies being undoped is 1 in 10,000(99.99% specificity).
Every case that results in a ban is going to meet that criteria or they'll be no athlete banned for a hematological anomalies case.
Say for example, the athlete's anomalies are of a lesser specificity (1 in 1000, 1 in 100, etc) - that athlete will be target tested but there will be ban unless the case meets the 99.99% specificity. If the athlete is using an ESA then all they can hope for is that target testing will eventually catch the athlete. However, if the athlete is using transfusions, then they'll probably get away with doping. You really have to be doping to meet the 99.00% specificity.
Here's a case study for you: Kiptum's hearing when he was banned for hematological anomalies (click the "decision" icon to bring up the hearing):
One of his samples near the time he set the HM WR at Valencia had an extremely high HGB value of 20.3 & subsequent OFF-score of 148.30 - both values exceeding the respective upper 99.99% specificity level.
The expert anti-doping panel unanimously ruled that the high values could not be the result of physiological cause such as altitude training, hypoxia tent usage or any changes in plasma due to training/retraining or illness.
So, not slam dunk but very solid cases when it meets the 99.99% specificity.
With respect, 99.99% specificity is a slam dunk to me. The chances he isn't doping are infinitesimal.
The great English marathon runner Paula Radcliffe is under suspicion for doping based on some leaked lab values from drug tests conducted sometime in the 2000s.
Anomolous bio passport data, such as Paula's might explain Rhonex's anomolous scores. Brother O'Donnell (his coach) having one of his athletes under the spotlight (for the wrong reasons) doesn't make a lot of sense at the end of a long and illustrious career spanning many decades.
Overlooking that you've mixed up sensitivity when you meant specificity (1 in 1000 sensitivity would be virtually useless and completely cost ineffective), all this talk about specificity is theoretical, based on a handful of ideal assumptions which may or may not be valid for each measurement. It falls apart in the presence of non-doping confounders (e.g. varying altitude or illness).
That is why the passport requires a final subjective assessment by "experts", and a data package that records all the relevant external data.
Right - that is exactly what happened here; the final expert panel has unanimously ruled that the ABP violations were not caused by "the presence of non-doping confounders" but by doping.
Anomolous bio passport data, such as Paula's might explain Rhonex's anomolous scores. Brother O'Donnell (his coach) having one of his athletes under the spotlight (for the wrong reasons) doesn't make a lot of sense at the end of a long and illustrious career spanning many decades.
You too are ignoring that the final expert panel has decided that Rhonex's ABP violations were caused by doping not by booze, altitude, illness or dehydration. It's highly unlikely that the DT will overrule the experts' findings, but we'll see in a couple of months.
Paula's cases were different: in 2003 and 2005, all ABP violations just resulted in more testing, which she passed. In her 2012 case, the final expert panel ruled that her ABP anomalies might have been caused by something natural, and thus she was never (not even provisionally) banned.
While waiting for the details in the current doping case, you could read up on Kiptum's or Rutto's or Chepchirchir's ABP cases (and values!), where they all tried to argue - fortunately unsuccessfully - that their abnormal values came from strange natural causes.