Half Marathon WR holder Abraham Kiptum busted by Bio Passport!!!!!!!!

Subway Surfers wrote:

Remember Aragon and his insistence that a transfusion was superior to epo?

I don't. Based on what?

This Is Getting Ridiculous wrote:

And when did you start playing expert undermining and criticizing the anti-doping experts who serve on the IAAF expert panel that reviews ABP cases?

I don't know what your problem is but if you're an "expert" in this field then reveal your identity and credentials -- then you're in a better position to criticize and dismiss what some of the experts in the field are saying about 02-vector doping & performance.

Allegedly he has an M. Sc., and understands statistics.

rekrunner wrote:

Looks like the WADA-IC also agreed with the IAAF's snide remark:

IAAF:

"any competent expert would refuse to consider the values from the blood samples collected by the IAAF prior to 2009 as reliable evidence of blood doping" (before ABP protocols)

WADA-IC:

"1. The IC does not accept the conclusion in the reports of Drs. Ashenden and Parisotto provided to the ARD and Sunday Times, in which it is stated that sanctions could have been obtained on the basis of the values reported in the IAAF database provided to them for analysis.

2. The IC is quite satisfied that no such sanctions could have been obtained other than through the ABP protocols."

Lol, no, WADA's committee was smart enough to not comment on the competence or expertise of Drs. Ashenden and Parisotto, in a stark contrast to your and Coe's personal vendetta.

And let's not forget that the IAAF itself used " values from the blood samples collected by the IAAF prior to 2009" as evidence to extend a ban, i.e. as evidence for doping prior to 2009. The IAAF even admitted to that, grudgingly, in their propaganda piece.

Did you read the previous posts before responding? It is not my claim, and not my burden. If it is based on studies like "Brien", you are only making my point stronger. I think you misunderstand the target of my criticism -- it is not experts like Schumacher.

They agreed with the IAAF in rejecting the conclusions of the experts, and agreed with the IAAF on the reasons why these conclusions should be rejected, and agreed with the IAAF regarding the significant differences between their "scholarly work" and the "commissioned work". I'm unaware of any single conclusion or accusation against the IAAF, from Ashenden and Parisotto that was upheld by the WADA-IC. The WADA-IC stopped just short of questioning competence, and as far as I know, no one has questioned the expertise of Ashenden/Parisotto (at least I do not), outside of Coe's "so-called scientists" remark, a remark I do not endorse or concur with. In fact, contrary to my repeated implications, I continue to think Ashenden/Parisotto are both competent scientists and experts, having made many important contributions to ABP research. But I also think that they significantly departed from that high scientific standard, and stepped out of their domain of competence (e.g. giving legal advice), to produce conclusions from data they had to know was incomplete, missing information "such as altitude, vigorous exercise prior to the tests, analyser error, variations between the use of different equipment", while knowing this could significantly impact and undermine such conclusions, having conducted much of the research. That the IAAF was competent enough to extend the length of an existing ban does not save an independent act of incompetence from these otherwise competent experts.

Subway Surfers wrote:

cateris paribas

When you try to sound clever and fail.

I have never read a post of yours that does not seek somehow to minimise either the seriousness of doping as a general issue or the case against individual athletes. You continue to say that you are against doping, while the problem disappears amidst the sea of words and random statistics that you summon to undercut expert opinion you don't like, and no individual doper ever incurs your ire. Holocaust deniers like the historian David Irving would have recognised your method.

+1

Yeap...spot on.

Operation Aderlass: ?

http://inrng.com/2019/03/operation-aderlass-and-the-bio-passport/

Subway Surfers wrote:

Remember Aragon and his insistence that a transfusion was superior to epo? I've been thinking about this over recent days. His evidence was correct from a static short term perspective, but over three years the epo athlete cateris paribas will deliver superior times. Why? a) muscle memory: the epo athlete as exhibited by Kiptum in full flight will learn to run at a faster rate and get fitter by default, so when they turn up at an event not glowing, the gains are still felt. And b) after the blood is taken/deposited/store there has to be a period of a lull which the epo doesn't suffer from. It is likely a combination of both but b) particularly as to why we have seen a dramatic improvement in longer distance times since 1990.

Most likely the ideal situation is to do both epo and blood transfusions. That is what Armstrong was doing.

Thank you - nice conclusion therein:

Too bad that Coe and co try to keep the police out of it.

I thought after the 2000 season he stayed away from the rocket fuel and strictly went blood doping? I don't think Landis mentions any rocket fuel use when he was riding for the LA? In fact, doesn't Landis mention an incident where LA flushed his BB down the toilet because he was pissed at him for pulling too hard of a tempo and trying to pull away from him up a major climb? (imagine LA getting irritated with a teammate back in those days. ?).

Ceteris paribus wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

cateris paribas

When you try to sound clever and fail.

No I typed Ceteris and the autocorrect on this doesn't recognize Latin.

casual obsever wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

Remember Aragon and his insistence that a transfusion was superior to epo?

I don't. Based on what?

He did. Some study claimed Vo2Max scores were higher x weeks/days after a transfusion vs the epo control group. Yet historical evidence shows that epo had an unrivaled effect on endurance. It's the year round fitness/training gains that he missed, that's why Kiprop got busted in November and Kiptum got caught in late March. A clean person with incredible talent can't compete with someone who can spend two years doing "proper" training on the good sauce.

But doesn't a professional autologous blood transfusion involve putting already high quality hemoglobin mass back in? I do understand what you are pointing out though and I do know that they were doing this. You know this could explain how Ayana turns up at the first day of a major champs, runs the second half at 14:20 pace and then struggles to run 14:30 in a flat out 5,000m.

And yet you just quoted a post that does not either seek to minimize seriousness of doping, or the case against any individual athlete, so I have to think the problem is downstream. It is not because the doping problem is serious, that it becomes justified for non-experts to bury the issue under a bunch of myths. On the contrary, because it is serious, we should take it seriously from an accurate body of knowledge. I am often discussing where knowledge stops, and where belief starts -- none of this should be interpreted or misconstrued that the problem is less serious, or that a doper should be set free. On the contrary, I think the problem is MORE serious because the decision to dope is based more on beliefs, rather than knowledge. In case you missed the topic and flow of the conversation, I think doping among athletes, even the fastest ones, is a widespread issue, because so many athletes/managers/coaches BELIEVE it is necessary to win. "casual obsever" goes further and says "experts KNOW it is necessary to win". I don't say "Schumacher's CAS statement is not peer-reviewed" as a criticism of Schumacher, or because it is an opinion I don't like, but rather because this shows that it is not a strong source for a claim of "expert knowledge" of what is "necessary to win" -- particularly if the statement is "maybe" based on a study on 33-minute 10K runners. Regarding Ashenden/Parisotto, my critcism is the differing opinions identified in the Sunday Times, versus several of their peer-reviewed papers. Again, it is not because I don't like their opinions, but given the choice, I like their peer-reviewed opinions. It is not just me noting the difference, but the IAAF (understandably) which documented many inconsistencies in a "scientifically sound" rebuttal, complete with quotes and citations, and the WADA-IC, which rejected the firmly held opinions, and conclusions of the experts. PS: I found your last comparison uncalled for.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I have never read a post of yours that does not seek somehow to minimise either the seriousness of doping as a general issue or the case against individual athletes. You continue to say that you are against doping, while the problem disappears amidst the sea of words and random statistics that you summon to undercut expert opinion you don't like, and no individual doper ever incurs your ire.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I have never read a post of yours that does not seek somehow to minimise either the seriousness of doping as a general issue or the case against individual athletes. You continue to say that you are against doping, while the problem disappears amidst the sea of words and random statistics that you summon to undercut expert opinion you don't like, and no individual doper ever incurs your ire.

+1

The best summary of RekRunner's work here I've yet read.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Remember Aragon and his insistence that a transfusion was superior to epo? I've been thinking about this over recent days. His evidence was correct from a static short term perspective, but over three years the epo athlete cateris paribas will deliver superior times. Why? a) muscle memory: the epo athlete as exhibited by Kiptum in full flight will learn to run at a faster rate and get fitter by default, so when they turn up at an event not glowing, the gains are still felt. And b) after the blood is taken/deposited/store there has to be a period of a lull which the epo doesn't suffer from. It is likely a combination of both but b) particularly as to why we have seen a dramatic improvement in longer distance times since 1990.

It's a very interesting question as to the relative effectiveness of blood transfusions and EPO. I'm surprised I don't see you guys discuss this more. In fact I've done a search before of this site and I don't think there's ever been a thread devoted to it here.

Subway Surfers wrote:

He did. Some study claimed Vo2Max scores were higher x weeks/days after a transfusion vs the epo control group. Yet historical evidence shows that epo had an unrivaled effect on endurance. It's the year round fitness/training gains that he missed, that's why Kiprop got busted in November and Kiptum got caught in late March. A clean person with incredible talent can't compete with someone who can spend two years doing "proper" training on the good sauce.

Blood transfusions act faster than EPO, yes. The best of two worlds is to improve fitness, and thus training capabilities with EPO ooc, and then pop it up literally during the competition week via blood transfusions (which then results in these huge off score jumps of 40% or more of the past).

Problem with using your own blood is that you have to have a down week after extracting it. Using somebody else's blood is detectable and may be dangerous, depending on the precautions.

Other than that, it's a piece of cake in the modern world; athletes are doing it by themselves in garages, basements and even on the autobahn as we've just seen.