WTF SERIOUSLY: Lornah Salpeter just ran 2:19:46 Prague ein

Bad Wigins wrote:

So, you can deny and name-call. But can refute what I just said about gas transport? It will amuse me to see you try.

Intelligence matters. Your deficiency can be seen where you quoted me as saying "the fact that Renato thinks..." You assumed that this meant I disagreed with him. I offered nothing to give away my position on that subject. I was simply offering his position as a predicate for a potential explanation as to why a couple of his runners did not have commensurate performances at longer distances. Try to keep up.

Renato Canova wrote:

4- Blood doping is more important in SHORT DISTANCES (800 - 1500m) than in long distances. This because the increase in AEROBIC POWER is higher than the collateral effect of REDUCTION OF THE VELOCITY OF THE CIRCULATION, and also because the athletes of middle distances normally don't agree (and don't like) to train in proper way for increasing, with training, thaier aerobic power. Longer is the distance, smaller is the percentage of Aerobic Power the athletes have to use, and for a race of 2 hours the negative effects are superior of the positive effects.

Simply not true the evidence refutes your hypothesis. The example of Kiptum is a case in point, remember him? Half Marathon World Record holder preparing to run 2:03/04 in London when busted.

Throw in Paula Rekrunner's suspicious values and Keitany being on the Fancy Bears list and the older Dibaba. It is quite possible that none of the sub 2:20 woman are clean.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Renato Canova wrote:

4- Blood doping is more important in SHORT DISTANCES (800 - 1500m) than in long distances. This because the increase in AEROBIC POWER is higher than the collateral effect of REDUCTION OF THE VELOCITY OF THE CIRCULATION, and also because the athletes of middle distances normally don't agree (and don't like) to train in proper way for increasing, with training, thaier aerobic power. Longer is the distance, smaller is the percentage of Aerobic Power the athletes have to use, and for a race of 2 hours the negative effects are superior of the positive effects.

Simply not true the evidence refutes your hypothesis. The example of Kiptum is a case in point, remember him? Half Marathon World Record holder preparing to run 2:03/04 in London when busted.

The example proves nothing. You don't know if he took something thinking it might make him a lot better and had marginal or no gains from it.

I am not saying one thing or the other but your example proves nothing.

Renato had already acknowledged that top athletes dope, as well as "second or worse level" athletes. Your list only confirms that, just as Renato said. He also explained that "the most part of athletes" are CLEAN. This "most part" can be found in the names missing from your list. To give a sense of how many names on your crazy doping list is missing, out of the top-32 performances (sub-2:20), only 5 names appear on your list, leaving the status of 27 athletes as potential candidates for "the most part of athletes are CLEAN". Since you included times like Columbia's Yolanda Caballero's 2:26:17, she is number 381 on that list. You only specified 20 names, leaving the status of 361 athletes as candidates for "the most part of athletes are CLEAN".

That doesn't quite justify "Doubt it. All of it". Evidence of "roughly half is doping" is also evidence of "roughly half is clean". Anti-doping experts that claim 3% often caution against projecting such 3% estimates onto elite performances. It's also worth repeating Renato's point (paraphrased): proof that doping produces faster times is not proof that fast times were a product of doping.

casual obsever wrote:

hth wrote:

Agreed. casual, I like many of your posts but I think you went a bit far there.

That I doubt it's possible to get a world record without doping?

That's not exactly far-fetched.

We have seen evidence that roughly half of the elite is doping, and seen several expert statements that blood doping alone can provide a boost of up to 3%, or even in excess of 3%.

You should really take "Seppelt's leak" Sunday Times conclusions with more grains of salt. While there is a lot we can tell from the Sunday Times summary data, there is a lot of relevant information lost by combining and aggregating disparate events (walking, multi-event, steeple, middle and long distance), combining men and women, and combining the different levels of "suspicion" (red flag "likely doping" with yellow flag "need followup"). The "medal count" alone has at least these issues: - Is 55 gold versus 45 bronze, out of 146 total, significantly more? - 146 medals include walking, multi-sport, middle and long distance events. - 146 medals co-mingles both men and women. - Some women may have won medals by virtue of steroids, a confounder not measured in "Seppelt's leaks". - Some medal wins were considered "suspicious" by virtue of samples at a different time than the medal win. - "Suspicion" combined "red" flag (likely doping) with "yellow" flag (not sure; need followup) suspicion. - The 146 medals were won by 76 athletes -- a sum of "more than half" red "likely doping" with the rest yellow "need followup". In any case, Renato said "second or worse level" athletes which would not be expected to win many World Champion or Olympic medals, so would not be reflected in a "gold medal" versus "bronze medal" count. Regarding "Kiptum, Radcliffe, Shobukhova, Jeptoo, Sumgong, etc." -- one of these athletes is not like the others. And their success doesn't necessarily indicate whether they succeeded because of receiving a benefit, or in spite of "reduced velocity of circulation".

casual obsever wrote:

...

Doubt it, because a) Seppelt's leak said otherwise (e.g., more suspicious gold than bronze medals) and b) because more is to be gained at the top (financially and reputation-wise).

...

The first part, probably. That is statistically confirmed by Seppelt's leak, as summarized in the Sunday Times overview from 2015.

The second part? Negative effects outweigh the gains? Kiptum, Radcliffe, Shobukhova, Jeptoo, Sumgong etc. and their coaches thought otherwise, and their success speaks for that too.

rekrunner wrote:

Renato had already acknowledged that top athletes dope, as well as "second or worse level" athletes.

Your list only confirms that, just as Renato said.

He also explained that "the most part of athletes" are CLEAN. This "most part" can be found in the names missing from your list.

To give a sense of how many names on your crazy doping list is missing, out of the top-32 performances (sub-2:20), only 5 names appear on your list, leaving the status of 27 athletes as potential candidates for "the most part of athletes are CLEAN".

Since you included times like Columbia's Yolanda Caballero's 2:26:17, she is number 381 on that list.

You only specified 20 names, leaving the status of 361 athletes as candidates for "the most part of athletes are CLEAN".

Here you go again rekrunner - you fail to understand data when it comes to doping. Aside from the numerous Kenyan female marathoners who served bans for doping, the other names are marathoners who served bans and are the National record holders for their nation, such as Colombia's Caballero (that you referenced) who not only is the Colombian NR holder but the South American record holder as well! So, the fact that you always reference a PB into the top all-time performance list has little revalence as so many of the fastest marathoners (NR record holders) of these various non-African countries have served bans for doping.

The other item you fail to grasp is the fact that 5 out of Russia's top 10 fastest marathoners have served doping bans, which includes their #1 OA & NR holder, Shobukhova (2:18:20). That's 50%! - what does that suggest with the other five? ? Clean? Hardly, IMO, given that country's State-sponsored doping history & PED philosophy. Maybe none of their marathoners are clean for all we know.

How about China's two fastest females that served bans for doping:

Yingjie/2:19:39 (NR)

Jiali/2:22:41 (2 bans: ABP hematological anomalies & EPO positive. Lol).

Their top 2 runners are dopers with one a 2-time loser and banned for 8 freaken years!

Here's some more that were left off the original list:

Croatia's fastest female served a ban for doping:

Nemec/2:25:44 (NR)

Slovenia's fastest female served a ban for doping:

Javornik/2:25:44 (NR)

Lithuania's fastest female served a ban for doping:

Balčiūnaitė/2:25:15 (NR)

I actually didn't realize it was this bad until I started researching this in depth. There probably are even more that I missed as the list is exhaustive.

C'mon rekrunner...so many NR holders from all these different non-African countries that served bans for doping. And regardless of whether or not they make your "top-100" list or whatever, holding the NR is a big deal and top level performance to these athletes. If you knew anything about performance you would have already known that.

Well...rekrunner; here's another one just announced!

Eunice Jepkirui Kirwa popped for EPO:

https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/disciplinary-process/provisional-suspensions-in-force

A 2:21 marathoner and the SILVER medalist at Rio!

FFS, what do you & Canova now say? Still no problem? All is well & good?

This is getting insane!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Kirwa

So a 2.21 runner is popped. Salpeter is 2.19. But no chance she could be juiced, too.

What do you think I failed to understand? I agreed that top athletes dope, as well as "second or worse level" athletes trying to become top athletes.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So a 2.21 runner is popped. Salpeter is 2.19. But no chance she could be juiced, too.

I know a 33:30 10k runner who doped. So anyone who has ever run under 33:30 must be a doper too? Great logic.

tyu wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So a 2.21 runner is popped. Salpeter is 2.19. But no chance she could be juiced, too.

I know a 33:30 10k runner who doped. So anyone who has ever run under 33:30 must be a doper too? Great logic.

That's your logic. It isn't my point. But if an E African-born athlete is running considerably faster than the second of two doped Olympic medallists, who are also from E Africa, I wouldn't bet your dog, let alone your truck or your house, that she's clean.

Armstronglivs wrote:

tyu wrote:

I know a 33:30 10k runner who doped. So anyone who has ever run under 33:30 must be a doper too? Great logic.

That's your logic. It isn't my point. But if an E African-born athlete is running considerably faster than the second of two doped Olympic medallists, who are also from E Africa, I wouldn't bet your dog, let alone your truck or your house, that she's clean.

Especially when she has such a suspicious profile and her husband and coach thinks we all have a 'sick obsession' with a manifestly out of control doping problem.

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

Renato had already acknowledged that top athletes dope, as well as "second or worse level" athletes.

Your list only confirms that, just as Renato said.

He also explained that "the most part of athletes" are CLEAN. This "most part" can be found in the names missing from your list.

To give a sense of how many names on your crazy doping list is missing, out of the top-32 performances (sub-2:20), only 5 names appear on your list, leaving the status of 27 athletes as potential candidates for "the most part of athletes are CLEAN".

Since you included times like Columbia's Yolanda Caballero's 2:26:17, she is number 381 on that list.

You only specified 20 names, leaving the status of 361 athletes as candidates for "the most part of athletes are CLEAN".

This is poor reasoning. You seem to imply that the fact that the other runners haven't been caught proves their innocence, when this is clearly not true. For instance, when you made that statement, Kirwa was one of the names missing from the previous poster's report, yet clearly she was dirty all along. Do you think that now that she's been caught, OK, we're good now, we caught the last of the cheaters? That would be silly.

And given what we know about the ease with which positive tests can be avoided, and the limitations of testing, it seems unlikely that those already caught even form a majority of the dirty runners included amongst the elite ranks.

rekrunner wrote:

That doesn't quite justify "Doubt it. All of it".

Evidence of "roughly half is doping" is also evidence of "roughly half is clean".

Non sequitur. Half of them could be known to be doping, a quarter questionable, and a quarter clean, for example.

But even if that were true, it would stand against this statement:

"The most part of top athletes are CLEAN."

rekrunner wrote:

Anti-doping experts that claim 3% often caution against projecting such 3% estimates onto elite performances.

"often"? "caution"? The references I provided to you on this several times were explicitly for elite runners. Stop trolling me.

We have seen higher numbers for slower folks.

rekrunner wrote:

You should really take "Seppelt's leak" Sunday Times conclusions with more grains of salt.

While there is a lot we can tell from the Sunday Times summary data, there is a lot of relevant information lost by combining and aggregating disparate events (walking, multi-event, steeple, middle and long distance), combining men and women, and combining the different levels of "suspicion" (red flag "likely doping" with yellow flag "need followup").

The "medal count" alone has at least these issues:

None of that is relevant for a comparison of gold and bronze medals, for the same criteria were used for both. Typical obfuscation from you.

Renato wasn't comparing gold and bronze medals. The gold and bronze medal count is a combination and aggregation of many disparate events, and is inflated by suspicion that might not have panned out, or was not pertinent to the medal in question. Your comparison of gold and bronze medals doesn't seem pertinent to Renato's "explanation" that "second and lower level" athletes are more likely to dope. Even moreso since the "second and lower level" athletes likely did not medal.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You should really take "Seppelt's leak" Sunday Times conclusions with more grains of salt.

While there is a lot we can tell from the Sunday Times summary data, there is a lot of relevant information lost by combining and aggregating disparate events (walking, multi-event, steeple, middle and long distance), combining men and women, and combining the different levels of "suspicion" (red flag "likely doping" with yellow flag "need followup").

The "medal count" alone has at least these issues:

None of that is relevant for a comparison of gold and bronze medals, for the same criteria were used for both. Typical obfuscation from you.

That doesn't quite justify "Doubt it. All of it". You wanted to say it was not possible, but your appeal to "roughly half" does not mean "impossible", and the "explicit for elite runners" references are not based on observation of elite runners, or coming from experts on creating or observing world record performances.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That doesn't quite justify "Doubt it. All of it".

Evidence of "roughly half is doping" is also evidence of "roughly half is clean".

Non sequitur. Half of them could be known to be doping, a quarter questionable, and a quarter clean, for example.

But even if that were true, it would stand against this statement:

"The most part of top athletes are CLEAN."

rekrunner wrote:

Anti-doping experts that claim 3% often caution against projecting such 3% estimates onto elite performances.

"often"? "caution"? The references I provided to you on this several times were explicitly for elite runners. Stop trolling me.

We have seen higher numbers for slower folks.