Third Kenyan runner in 10 days fails doping test

I don't disagree with the number 3.2%, but the conclusion that this is "overwhelming evidence" for EPO. My "closer look at performance" was performed without any knowledge of EPO use by the athletes. The next step is to show the role of EPO, to get passed the "baseless assumption" stage. This is what is missing from "overwhelming evidence". These fast times were set by people not busted for EPO. Looking just at times and the years they were set is not enough to say "overwhelming evidence".

Marathoners On The Rocket Fuel wrote:

In reviewing rekrunner's EPO-footprint analysis data, he's shows out of the 6 disciplines analyzed the marathon demonstrating the largest performance gain of 3.2% for the E. Africans during the rEPO use timeframe vs the pre-90s top 5 average of 2:07. "3.2%" is very significant and, IMO, the single most greatest game changer occuring with rEPO. Incidentally, he also shows an identical "3.2%" improvement for the E. African women - definitely consistency shown there.

Ironically, this isn't too far off of m!ndweak's estimated ~4% improvement with rEPO (and yet he undermines & dismisses m!ndweak's estimation...go figure). So, in essence, rekrunner has done a fine job of showing that the marathon benefits the most from rEPO use. ?

While I appreciate your extreme moral stance, it is only fair to judge the athletes by the rules they are supposed to follow. That's the deal that is struck with the athletes, and it is hardly fair to change the rules after the fact. Regarding Actovegin, yes during the few months it was banned by the IOC, it was against the rules. But once the IOC said "now that we know more, we find that there is no reason to ban it", my sentiment is that it falls in the category of harmless remedies like homeopathy, isotonic drinks, and vitamin and mineral supplements, or "legal" drugs like caffeine, aspirin and ibuprofen. Regarding Meldonium, the substance is now banned, but in my opinion, there is a certain inconsistency with the reasons given for banning it, compared to other recent drugs in the headlines, like L-Carnitine and Actovegin, where similar reasons were not enough to ban it.

I don't defend Renato per se, but talk about factors which can affect performance. If you think you found some "exception" to his claim about "supplements and vitamins", this doesn't interest me, and it's foolish to think that this would relieve you of the burden of making your own affirmative argument, especially on topics unrelated to supplements and vitamins. Even if you felt justified in discarding everything Renato claims, because you cleverly caught him in some lie, this does not advance any alternative argument you may want to make.

Lying wrote:

The point is that you will continue to defend Renato, even though he is blatantly lying.

rekrunner wrote:

My main concern would be with any potential performance benefit.

Since we are talking about legal supplements and vitamins, I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be.

I just want to go on record again, that I don't attack YOU over and over and over. Whenever I ask you to provide a concrete example of such an attack, it goes unanswered. I never doubted the number 4%, but your conclusion that this is somehow connected to EPO, because you have consistently failed to show such a connection. I can always find a +/- 4% in any clean athlete, and every athlete doping with steroids.

m!ndweak wrote:

dont forget guys rek and others constantly attacked me over and over and over about how i just randomly pulled 4% out of my a$$....then i would explain it and explain it, then get deleted then banned lol....but the EPO busts from kenya keep coming dont they?

but but but it doesnt work, tea is $32, my kenyans dont even take asprin....what? wtf are they christian science? lolz

rekrunner wrote:

I don't disagree with the number 3.2%, but the conclusion that this is "overwhelming evidence" for EPO.

My "closer look at performance" was performed without any knowledge of EPO use by the athletes.

The next step is to show the role of EPO, to get passed the "baseless assumption" stage.

This is what is missing from "overwhelming evidence".

These fast times were set by people not busted for EPO.

Looking just at times and the years they were set is not enough to say "overwhelming evidence".

Nice backpedaling job - do you even bother to read what you write? Read this paragraph from your introduction: "It may not be the 3-6% individual improvement, but nevertheless, we should be able to see some sort of "EPO footprint", showing how the "game changed", resulting from a drug often described as a "game-changer." Too funny - for the E. Africans you found 3.2% for the marathon, 3.0% for the 10,000 & 2.6% for the 5000.

Therefore, two events (marathon and the 10) were right on the money, and were in fact at the low end of the "3-6% individual improvement" that you thought might be too high and the 5000 was fairly close at 2.6%. And further down on page 1 under the 5000 analysis you mention "Would expect EPO helps 5000m." So you new this all along...good job. ?

And you say your analysis was performed without any knowledge of EPO use by the athletes, but you're suspecting it based on some of your comments, right? And if the the fast times were set by athletes "not busted"for EPO then why did you use them in the first place? Were you looking for confirmed EPO positive/ABP hematological sanction cases or just suspected cases?

You keep moving the goalposts now to deflect from the significant performance improvement seen in the longer events with the E. Africans, based on your own analysis, coupled with the recent EPO busts of top performering Kenyans. ?

rekrunner wrote:

It's not a question of "close". They don't seem analogous at all. To me, "WADA banned" is an essential difference. Some PED's are legal, so if you want to continue down this line, please be less ambiguous.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Especially since the essential difference is only that PED's are generally considered to be those compounds on the banned substance list, while "vitamins and supplements" are compounds not on the list, or not in the quantities specified on the list, or not taken at a time prohibited by the list.

I said "probably the closest possible analogue", and it is.

It is analogous in the sense that it is a substance introduced into the body that is not a normal food. This includes substances and compounds of all sorts, from macronutrients to micronutrients to enzymes to coenzymes to peptides to analgesics to opiates to stimulants to vitamins to minerals, and so on.

The only difference between doping and not doping is whether it is on the list in the quantity and at the time taken without a TUE, or in excess of the regimen authorized under TUE.

Vitamins and supplements are not only analogous, they are the closest possible analogue to doping, because they are distinguished only by regulation. In all other respects, they are essentially identical for purposes of comparison.

The question asked of Canova by the other poster does merit an answer.

rekrunner wrote:

Supplements and vitamins are the closest possible analogue to PED administration? You guys look desperate, looking for any excuse.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

You are a bit of an arse, aren't you?

While he may have overplayed his hand, the point is a valid one, especially since it is probably the closest possible analogue to PED administration.

What a mess.

[/quote]

Try and keep it civil with me, rekrunner. I have no horse in this race, and am therefore not "desperate" in any way. With the exception of this aberration, which I shall ignore, I find your contributions to the dialogue worthwhile.

Truth, candor, and justice are what we should all be pursuing.

Marathoners On The Rocket Fuel wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

"Improving," who said anything about improving? I use absolutes, the data that actually exists.

In reviewing rekrunner's EPO-footprint analysis data, he's shows out of the 6 disciplines analyzed the marathon demonstrating the largest performance gain of 3.2% for the E. Africans during the rEPO use timeframe vs the pre-90s top 5 average of 2:07. "3.2%" is very significant and, IMO, the single most greatest game changer occuring with rEPO. Incidentally, he also shows an identical "3.2%" improvement for the E. African women - definitely consistency shown there.

Ironically, this isn't too far off of m!ndweak's estimated ~4% improvement with rEPO (and yet he undermines & dismisses m!ndweak's estimation...go figure). So, in essence, rekrunner has done a fine job of showing that the marathon benefits the most from rEPO use. ?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8635957

It is likely just coincidence since the substances and pathways are likely different, but around 4-4.5% is a common improvement achieved by sprinters, and that is in a maximal effort. Also, the full improvement usually requires 1-2 years to achieve, usually closer to 2, I think.

rekrunner wrote:

I don't defend Renato per se,

You are silly. And funny.

While it's tempting to think I showed cause, looking for a "footprint" with an expectation, and even finding examples which appear to match, is not sufficient to show both cause and effect. Drawing this kind of conclusion is the same "proof by example" fallacy which I keep saying is not valid. Notably, I did not draw this conclusion in my analysis, nor did I state that this expectation was "a goalpost". The performance analysis only shows effect. Confirmation of expectation is comforting, but falls far short of actually showing cause. You might ask, what is the point then. The goalpost was never to show that EPO caused East African performance (something this analysis does not and cannot show), but to quantify, in terms of quality and quantity, my previously unsupported claims that statistics would show how most of the world performed rather poorly compared to expectations, in an era named after EPO. I said we should see this footprint outside of Africa. We should have seen it, for example, in Spain, where we only saw 1 athlete in 10000m (0.0%) and 1 athlete in the marathon (0.3%). We should have seen it in Morocco, and we saw 0.9% in both the 10000m and marathon, which is fairly close to MY estimation of less than 1%. I didn't pick Spain or Morocco as cherry picked bad examples, but you guys cherry picked Spain and Morocco as the best "doped to the gills" examples of the EPO-era. These are contradictions which force us to refine our expectations. Looking at the 101 East Africans in the 10000m and the 201 East Africans in the marathon, how many were busted for EPO or ABP? Just Kisorio and Erupe? Anyone else? So we have examples of countries known to dope that did not perform as well as should be expected (Spain, and Morocco, and lets not forget Russia), and we still have a largely unmet burden to show that the "top" East Africans in the marathon even used EPO. That's where I left you at the end of my analysis. Whatever you think I suspected going into the analysis, I'd have to say the suspicions of a globally available, globally effective, globally undetectable, powerful endurance drug, were not confirmed according to expectations. And lastly, why are you so confused about why I used times not busted for EPO, or if i was "looking for confirmed EPO positive/ABP hematological sanction cases or just suspected cases?" I used all performances, including these annulled due to doping. Rather than subjectively excluding performances, I included all of them, and the results need to be interpreted with that in mind. If you develop a model, it needs to explain all the historical facts and real world observations. If I constrained myself to using just known doped performances, many events, including the 10000m and the marathon, would have no entries at all, and I would have to conclude that EPO made athletes much slower -- something I did not do, and something that cannot be reliably shown with so few samples.

When I said "you guys" this was not directed at you, and the desperation is this idea that "the point is a valid one" -- that somehow catching some exception in athletes using legal supplements and vitamins would undermine the "truth, candor, and justice" concerning EPO and performance. It looks like a desperate excuse, by those without knowledge and experience, to find any reason to ignore what Renato says, where he has direct knowledge and experience, in order to avoid the merits. "Desperation" doesn't seem uncivil to me. I apologize if you find it offensive.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Supplements and vitamins are the closest possible analogue to PED administration? You guys look desperate, looking for any excuse.

While he may have overplayed his hand, the point is a valid one, especially since it is probably the closest possible analogue to PED administration.

What a mess.

Try and keep it civil with me, rekrunner. I have no horse in this race, and am therefore not "desperate" in any way. With the exception of this aberration, which I shall ignore, I find your contributions to the dialogue worthwhile.

Truth, candor, and justice are what we should all be pursuing.[/quote]

Sorry about the mucked up quotes...

What good is it if Renato has direct knowledge and experience if he is lying about his direct knowledge and experience? He seems to know he has been caught...

rekrunner wrote:

When I said "you guys" this was not directed at you, and the desperation is this idea that "the point is a valid one" -- that somehow catching some exception in athletes using legal supplements and vitamins would undermine the "truth, candor, and justice" concerning EPO and performance. It looks like a desperate excuse, by those without knowledge and experience, to find any reason to ignore what Renato says, where he has direct knowledge and experience, in order to avoid the merits. "Desperation" doesn't seem uncivil to me. I apologize if you find it offensive.

"Extreme moral stance", nice one! I think it's a normal viewpoint, shared by most people. No-one is changing the rules after the fact, I just think that consuming products made of calves blood, or when WADA has to advise athletes to avoid taking 'deer antler velvet spray' then something is very wrong.

Don't think you're correct in the way that the un-banning of Actovegin came about. It wasn't "now that we know more, we find that there is no reason to ban it", but rather an absence of any conclusive evidence to prove that it did have performance enhancing effects. As an aside, the lack of studies into the effects of taking Actovegin on endurance and other performance effects is really astonishing.

Agree with you on Medonium, but you are just tying yourself in knots with your line of argument. It is banned rekrunner, therefore it is a BAD THING.

wrongo wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

Mo was urine and blood tested by WADA at the same time, which is extremely idiotic unless it was 'staged.' Pretty sure AK currently can only test urine samples, but yes Renato needs to clarify that one.

This is where you are wrong. And in so many other aspects...

Renato doesn't need to do anything for you. I don't know why he still provides data and wastes time replying to the likes of you.

He should ignore people like you.

Oh and...

Subway Surfers wrote:

Good spotting ?(thee old thread got notoriously closed), in a gorilla war use your enemies weapons against them ? notice the longer the distance the bigger the gain? Also, see mindweak's post, just priceless.

LOL gorilla war????? LOL

Hi ? ex runner

Think This One Through wrote:

And you say your analysis was performed without any knowledge of EPO use by the athletes, but you're suspecting it based on some of your comments, right? And if the the fast times were set by athletes "not busted"for EPO then why did you use them in the first place? Were you looking for confirmed EPO positive/ABP hematological sanction cases or just suspected cases?

You keep moving the goalposts now to deflect from the significant performance improvement seen in the longer events with the E. Africans, based on your own analysis, coupled with the recent EPO busts of top performering Kenyans. ?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8635957

Don't forget that during this debate we found out that the North African 5000m data was wrong and understated the massive epo era gains.

Assuming you are correct and he is blatantly lying, and assuming that a lie about supplements is actually significant in other contexts, such as elite training, performance, and any possible role EPO might play, you could reject the direct knowledge and experience. In this case, you are left with nothing, because there is no one here who actually has direct knowledge and experience with elite athletes, and the level of conversation remains one of uninformed and baseless speculation, hypothesis, theory, faith, and mythology.

He's lying wrote:

What good is it if Renato has direct knowledge and experience if he is lying about his direct knowledge and experience?

He seems to know he has been caught...

rekrunner wrote:

When I said "you guys" this was not directed at you, and the desperation is this idea that "the point is a valid one" -- that somehow catching some exception in athletes using legal supplements and vitamins would undermine the "truth, candor, and justice" concerning EPO and performance. It looks like a desperate excuse, by those without knowledge and experience, to find any reason to ignore what Renato says, where he has direct knowledge and experience, in order to avoid the merits. "Desperation" doesn't seem uncivil to me. I apologize if you find it offensive.

It is a viewpoint that is not fair to the athletes, who are told in detail what is OK and what is not. And it's a viewpoint that doesn't really count for anything. Actovegin is no secret -- if it is not banned now, 18 years after the IOC lifted its short two month ban, I have trouble getting excited about it. If it were some unknown substance not yet evaluated, it might be a different story. Regarding meldonium, if a substance is banned, I don't find it either good or bad, just banned, and should lead to a sanction. It's just that the athletes agreed to be bound by the WADA code and comply with WADA guidelines and rules.

Really? I don't remember that.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Don't forget that during this debate we found out that the North African 5000m data was wrong and understated the massive epo era gains.