has there been an announcement by IAAF of a ban and if not any idea when?
has there been an announcement by IAAF of a ban and if not any idea when?
"Nevertheless, there are a couple of bizarre elements to the story. Whatever it is, I hope the whole truth comes out and justice is served."
That part ⤴
A main topic of discussion with me is looking for causes of fast performance, which I always define by race times. If you are responding to a quote from me about "slow times", this is the topic of the discussion that I'm participating in. Winning Olympic medals, Championship medals, and major marathons are praise-worthy indeed, and deserve respect. But it is often off-topic, moving the goalposts, deflection, mis-direction. These are things I'm often accused of, yet it goes unnoticed when anyone else responds to me. I do not know how to objectively factor in a gold medal into a performance model defined by race times. An example of a gold medal win, with a relatively slow time, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, does not support an argument that EPO leads to faster times than is possible without EPO. Re-characterizing my efforts to stay on topic as "downplaying success" is rather misleading. I do not generally look at medal wins, but the Sunday Times did. Using a metric of "abnormal value once in their life", rather than "abnormal at the time of the medal win", they classified number of medals won by event, and found, for 5K and 10K, 7 out of 10 medals were won by athletes who never had abnormal values, and for the marathon, 8 out of 9 medals were won by athletes who never had abnormal blood values. The evidence that EPO makes one more likely to win medals is rather scarce. The 1500m is the race with the most (54%) medals won by athletes who ever had "abnormal values" -- and we can see from all-time global performances, that both quantitatively and qualitatively, this event benefited the least of all distance events, post-1990 (unless you include the 800m). Regarding my/Canova's "observed reality", at that time, he gave 4 examples: Kisorio, Jeptoo, Erupe, and now Kiprop. You've really only addressed Jeptoo, arguing it was a great performance, despite the slow time. Even if we recognize Jeptoo's success in Chicago, you have still avoided the examples of Kisorio, Erupe, and Kiprop, where they were not succeeding either by time or by place, and not winning medals. These are not the only "observed realities" I have shown you. While you might argue semantically if "every" or "WORST" are the correct terms, in "WHEN some of the top Kenyans was caught, every time was in the WORST period of their career", there is no shortage of examples of athletes running slower WHEN they were caught, requiring some acrobatic justifications that this still proves success years earlier, and you are naive if you don't accept this logical fallacy. It looks like you pulled out that "white people got slower" quote from 2014. Because many people chose to reject and correct this, with a heightened level of scrutiny and bar for accuracy seemingly only reserved for me, I launched the "closer look at performances" thread to best quantify and qualify the performance of athletes from 5 continents, versus North Africans and East Africans, using real all-time performance data. Today if I say "slower", it will be for selected populations, and selected events, like Britain in the 1500m, or it will be relative to their competitors, who took 3 steps forward, while the "rest" of the world took a half-step forward. Your suggestions to lower the generous thresholds of the ABP will initially implicate more innocent athletes. Given all this talk of lifetime bans and criminal penalties, the importance of getting this right is paramount. It will require a higher demand on experts to filter the innocent athletes. Maybe more athletes will be caught, but surely many more will be let go by experts who cannot agree unanimously. Your suggestion that making it criminal will "help" is equally simplistic, and not very well thought out. Since WADA and IAAF are not part of any nation's criminal justice system, this means the processing of doping convictions will be managed by each nation's criminal courts, and the justice will not be metered out consistently. One of the founding goals of WADA was to standardize testing and sanctions across all nations. While criminal status means that investigations have more "teeth", as federal bodies have the power to seize and compel production of evidence, the standard for conviction will also be higher. This is effectively the opposite of lowering "generous" ABP thresholds, as convictions will require an increased level of certainty, and lowering ABP thresholds only serve to increase uncertainty. And lastly criminal prosecutions will take even longer than the existing "arbitration" process. Look at the example of Aden, caught "red-handed" with EPO in the next hotel room, where 2 years later, the prosecution is just making its preliminary demands for a trial which still does not have a date. Your suggestions of improving anti-doping will greatly increase cost, time to prosecute, while lowering efficiency of already scarce resources. In my opinion.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I don't know what "downplay success" is supposed to mean. I don't ever argue against a successful performance -- measuring performance with time and place, is objective.
Examples from you from various different threads:
Downplaying Olympic Gold of a male EPO (CERA) user:
rekrunner wrote:
Why are you so confused about Ramzi? The times we know he doped, he did not run as fast.
Downplaying Olympic Gold of a female EPO user:
rekrunner wrote:
I questioned if and how much EPO helped Sumgong run faster, or if there could be other significant factors.
Downplaying clear wins of two consecutive Majors by an EPO user:
rekrunner wrote:
I think my important contributions to any Jeptoo Boston 2014 discussion was to point out 1) that Chicago was 6 minutes slower, a race where we know she took EPO a few weeks before, and 2) Boston was fast because Shalane started with an aggressive pace.
Classical downplaying of success. Instead, one should point out that she won a fast Majors by a clear margin, while doped, and that she won a tactical Majors by a clear margin (in the same year) - in each case simply running away from the field during the last couple of miles.
That kind of strength towards the end of a marathon is actually exactly that kind described by the experienced EPO user Eddy Hellebuyck.
And straight out lies, for that is plainly wrong, not "the observed reality":
rekrunner wrote:You also avoided the observed reality: "if we look at WHEN some of the top Kenyans was caught, every time was in the WORST period of their career?"
Yes I know, Canova said it first, but you called in "the observed reality".
Another clear lie, though often repeated by you and corrected by many:
rekrunner wrote:
The fact is that white people got slower in the 90's, despite the availability and untestability of EPO.
rekrunner wrote:
Your suggestions for cracking down on anti-doping will convict innocent athletes.
No, they won't.
rekrunner wrote:
Regarding my/Canova's "observed reality", at that time, he gave 4 examples: Kisorio, Jeptoo, Erupe, and now Kiprop. You've really only addressed Jeptoo, arguing it was a great performance, despite the slow time. Even if we recognize Jeptoo's success in Chicago, you have still avoided the examples of Kisorio, Erupe, and Kiprop, where they were not succeeding either by time or by place, and not winning medals. These are not the only "observed realities" I have shown you. While you might argue semantically if "every" or "WORST" are the correct terms, in "WHEN some of the top Kenyans was caught, every time was in the WORST period of their career", there is no shortage of examples of athletes running slower WHEN they were caught, requiring some acrobatic justifications that this still proves success years earlier, and you are naive if you don't accept this logical fallacy.
What were Jeptoo's finishing splits in Chicago (last 5km etc)? I bet that there was a change up in pace.
What about Jeptoo and Sumgong? They were dominant on the world scene when they were caught.
Kisorio has admitted that he was on the sauce when he was at his best.
This is your response to "what about Kisorio, Erupe, and Kiprop"? Do you have a link where Kisorio admitted to being on the sauce when he was at his best? My recollection was that the doping started only after a few bad performances.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
What were Jeptoo's finishing splits in Chicago (last 5km etc)? I bet that there was a change up in pace.
What about Jeptoo and Sumgong? They were dominant on the world scene when they were caught.
Kisorio has admitted that he was on the sauce when he was at his best.
rekrunner wrote:
This is your response to "what about Kisorio, Erupe, and Kiprop"?
Do you have a link where Kisorio admitted to being on the sauce when he was at his best?
My recollection was that the doping started only after a few bad performances.
The Kisorio case is weird; for one he's very ambiguous. The positive was for 19-Norandrosterone but he describes being injected with a substance that improves his "endurance"...so is he describing EPO? He doesn't mention anything specific about the steroid positive but 19-Norandrosterone is only injectable - so what the heck is talking about, i.e. being injected with a steroid or EPO? Maybe both? (the popular EPO/steroid combo). I wonder if he even knows the difference between the two PEDs? Or is he playing dumb and he was using only the steroid for strength & recovery over the past several years. Btw, he has posted some fast times both before the pop and after his ban. Definitely a strange case:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/athletics/suspended-kenyan-says-doping-is-common-8031835.htmlLet's Get To The Bottom Of This wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
This is your response to "what about Kisorio, Erupe, and Kiprop"?
Do you have a link where Kisorio admitted to being on the sauce when he was at his best?
My recollection was that the doping started only after a few bad performances.
The Kisorio case is weird; for one he's very ambiguous. The positive was for 19-Norandrosterone but he describes being injected with a substance that improves his "endurance"...so is he describing EPO? He doesn't mention anything specific about the steroid positive but 19-Norandrosterone is only injectable - so what the heck is talking about, i.e. being injected with a steroid or EPO? Maybe both? (the popular EPO/steroid combo). I wonder if he even knows the difference between the two PEDs? Or is he playing dumb and he was using only the steroid for strength & recovery over the past several years. Btw, he has posted some fast times both before the pop and after his ban. Definitely a strange case:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/athletics/suspended-kenyan-says-doping-is-common-8031835.html
It's extremely common for athletes doping to be taking a cocktail of drugs. Steroids work for distance runners and this has been known since they were banned. Improvements in healing muscle tissue as well as increased force production with limited weight training = speed.
Barrel of Laughs wrote:
Diabalo wrote:
That is what the Integrity Unit is. It is an independent body hired by the IAAF to test throughout the world. I presume Kenya is now part of that system, although it is not clear whether KIprop was tested by his own federation or by the Integrity Unit back in November last year. These things won't happen overnight, but testing should be heading towards random out of competition samples being collected by independent testers from the top 30 in each event. There are now regulations in place for transparency and equality of testing regardless of nationality.
You also seem to avoid the fact that 4 year bans were implemented by the IAAF years ago, but they were forced to drop it as a sanction when they were taken to court and it was deemed to contravene the positive athletes' human right to make a living. The IAAF cannot just implement what they want if they are then over-ruled by superior legal bodies. You can't blame them for that one.
The only way to put the kibosh on doping and end this charade once and for all is: 1) LIFETIME ban for the first offense & 2) CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for doping (both for the athlete and ANY coach, doctor or agent proved to be involved with the doping).
Since this isn't going to happen anytime soon, lets just continue enjoying the PED-fueled performances!...it's a barrel of laughs! ???
The entire career performances of any athlete caught doping should also be annulled, including medals and records. They should also be forced to give back all prizemoney earned, and if they can't, their sponsors should. The present system is crazy. Usain Bolt loses his gold medal because one of his teammates doped, yet Kiprop keeps his gold medal despite failing a test (when he's running way worse times than when he won his gold medal).
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12067312wow just wow....i go and have a fun filled productive weekend and i come back to rekrunner boasting again that he is smart and we are all dumb...pretty much a hijack of the thread.
this thread was about kiprop getting busted, but now its rekrunner mocking casual and subway yet again....he mocked me but that was 3 pages ago and i didnt bother to read his pretentious insults. i mean whats the point? he is so superior in intellect i wouldnt be able to understand it anyway.
anyone know where i can get this book?
"Understanding Rekrunner for dummies"
i have a feeling that its going to cost me $32, anyone bought it yet?
Don't sell yourself short. That looks like a book you could write.
m!ndweak wrote:
wow just wow....i go and have a fun filled productive weekend and i come back to rekrunner boasting again that he is smart and we are all dumb...pretty much a hijack of the thread.
this thread was about kiprop getting busted, but now its rekrunner mocking casual and subway yet again....he mocked me but that was 3 pages ago and i didnt bother to read his pretentious insults. i mean whats the point? he is so superior in intellect i wouldnt be able to understand it anyway.
anyone know where i can get this book?
"Understanding Rekrunner for dummies"
i have a feeling that its going to cost me $32, anyone bought it yet?
rekrunner wrote:
Winning Olympic medals, Championship medals, and major marathons are praise-worthy indeed, and deserve respect. But it is often off-topic, moving the goalposts, deflection, mis-direction. These are things I'm often accused of, yet it goes unnoticed when anyone else responds to me.
It is not off topic when discussing whether EPO is helpful or not.
It indeed does not help quantifying the EPO benefit, but then, nothing really does.
rekrunner wrote:
Using a metric of "abnormal value once in their life", rather than "abnormal at the time of the medal win", they classified number of medals won by event, and found, for 5K and 10K, 7 out of 10 medals were won by athletes who never had abnormal values, and for the marathon, 8 out of 9 medals were won by athletes who never had abnormal blood values.
Cool hand-picked stats. Also incorrect, because the Sunday Times did only have access to an incomplete data base. Plus you know very well that it is not uncommon for EPO cheats to have "normal" ABPs - thanks to the generous thresholds in place to classify "normal". Examples were presented to you several times.
rekrunner wrote:
Even if we recognize Jeptoo's success in Chicago
"Even if"? Here yo go again, downplaying the success of a drug cheat. She was also successful - actually dominant, to be more precise - in Boston.
rekrunner wrote:
While you might argue semantically if "every" or "WORST" are the correct terms, in "WHEN some of the top Kenyans was caught, every time was in the WORST period of their career"
"semantically"? Is this is joke? "every" or "WORST" were just plain wrong, as demonstrated by more than one example; in fact, neither you nor Canova have demonstrated anyone running their worst while drugged.
rekrunner wrote:
It looks like you pulled out that "white people got slower" quote from 2014.
Quite possibly. It was wrong then, it is wrong now.
rekrunner wrote:
Your suggestions to lower the generous thresholds of the ABP will initially implicate more innocent athletes.
Nope. But keep pretending it's normal to violate the thresholds for no reason.
Coevett wrote:
The entire career performances of any athlete caught doping should also be annulled, including medals and records. They should also be forced to give back all prizemoney earned, and if they can't, their sponsors should.
The same punishment should apply to the athlete's coach and managers. Do this and the problem will pretty much disappear overnight.
clean Ageas' stables wrote:
Coevett wrote:
The entire career performances of any athlete caught doping should also be annulled, including medals and records. They should also be forced to give back all prizemoney earned, and if they can't, their sponsors should.
The same punishment should apply to the athlete's coach and managers. Do this and the problem will pretty much disappear overnight.
well that would mean the BROJOS would have to get hardnosed with rosas and canova....but those two worship those two. so if they say "all is good and clean, EPO doesnt work"
then the brojos come on here and repeat like parrots.
ban rosas for 4yrs and canova for 2 yrs and watch the circus unfold. busts will happen all the time cause they wont know how much to micro or when to take EPO/PEDs, they wont know what their blood values are so deaths are likely or too long of a glow, etc etc..
how many in rosas stable has been popped? and yet he is allowed to keep on keeping on
clean Ageas' stables wrote:
Coevett wrote:
The entire career performances of any athlete caught doping should also be annulled, including medals and records. They should also be forced to give back all prizemoney earned, and if they can't, their sponsors should.
The same punishment should apply to the athlete's coach and managers. Do this and the problem will pretty much disappear overnight.
That's right, in the Kisorio case, he was duped into taking some vitamins by a doctor without scruples.
Most of the runners are honest, as one suspects is the case with Asbel Kiprop, who we are still waiting for more conclusions on his unfortunate case, but the good news is that, going by the twitter and facebook feeds, more and more notable elites are showing support for the lanky, elegant -always smartly attired, Asbel Kiprop.
Eldoret, Iten and Kapsagat will breath sighs of relief, should the superstar be vindicated.
Ghost1 wrote:
Most of the runners are honest, as one suspects is the case with Asbel Kiprop, who we are still waiting for more conclusions on his unfortunate case, but the good news is that, going by the twitter and facebook feeds, more and more notable elites are showing support for the lanky, elegant -always smartly attired, Asbel Kiprop.
Kiprop doper honest? ? C'mon man...he's playing games and you know it! He could come out and admit to doping, give us details about the program he was on, rat out the Kenyan doping doctors/coaches that he surely knows about and apologize to all those Kenyan youngsters that idolize him!
You're really too much Ghost1...I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it was a Jager or Rupp that tested positive for dope!
Does anyone have an answer to this question?
Possibilities:
1- She's on drugs but hasn't been caught;
2- She's on drugs but all the results have been buried;
3- She's on something better than drugs (transgender etc);
Or:
4- She's ever taken any PEDs - Therefore PEDs don't provide any benefit.
Which is it? What is the answer to this question?
Does anyone have an answer to this question?
Possibilities:
1- She's on drugs but hasn't been caught;
2- She's on drugs but all the results have been buried;
3- She's on something better than drugs (transgender etc);
Or:
4- She's never taken any PEDs - Therefore PEDs don't provide any benefit.
Which is it? What is the answer to this question?
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Winning Olympic medals, Championship medals, and major marathons are praise-worthy indeed, and deserve respect. But it is often off-topic, moving the goalposts, deflection, mis-direction. These are things I'm often accused of, yet it goes unnoticed when anyone else responds to me.
It is not off topic when discussing whether EPO is helpful or not.
It indeed does not help quantifying the EPO benefit, but then, nothing really does.
If I ever merely discussed "if" it helps, you might have a point. I often discuss in terms of choosing between a large effect (e.g. 3% or more) or small effect (less than 1%), or possibly a negative effect. Slow championship times, even golds or double golds, with ALL DUE RESPECT, are not part of that discussion.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Using a metric of "abnormal value once in their life", rather than "abnormal at the time of the medal win", they classified number of medals won by event, and found, for 5K and 10K, 7 out of 10 medals were won by athletes who never had abnormal values, and for the marathon, 8 out of 9 medals were won by athletes who never had abnormal blood values.
Cool hand-picked stats. Also incorrect, because the Sunday Times did only have access to an incomplete data base. Plus you know very well that it is not uncommon for EPO cheats to have "normal" ABPs - thanks to the generous thresholds in place to classify "normal". Examples were presented to you several times.
The point I made was that, if you wanted to make a case based on medals, that analysis is probably the most comprehensive, and it makes a very poor affirmative case that high blood values are necessary to win medals, especially as the distances get longer. You want to make excuses why you can't get the data you need to make a case, while still trying to make the case as if the data would support you, if only you had it.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Even if we recognize Jeptoo's success in Chicago
"Even if"? Here yo go again, downplaying the success of a drug cheat. She was also successful - actually dominant, to be more precise - in Boston.
The claim was that you avoided the other realities, i.e. Kisorio, Erupe, and now Kiprop. You are still doing it.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
While you might argue semantically if "every" or "WORST" are the correct terms, in "WHEN some of the top Kenyans was caught, every time was in the WORST period of their career"
"semantically"? Is this is joke? "every" or "WORST" were just plain wrong, as demonstrated by more than one example; in fact, neither you nor Canova have demonstrated anyone running their worst while drugged.
You are still playing between a choice of words from a non-native English speaker, to gain a trivial victory. If "WORST" is plain wrong, then "SLOW" is plain right. If I say "slow", then the point stands completely unrefuted. I have given you many examples of athletes running slow when they were caught, in some cases years after their personal best.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It looks like you pulled out that "white people got slower" quote from 2014.
Quite possibly. It was wrong then, it is wrong now.
I didn't say it now. (And before you go back and rehash the same interpretative mistakes you made back on page 9, where I requoted "Coevett" in the original post, the context there is different, restricted both in time and events.)
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Your suggestions to lower the generous thresholds of the ABP will initially implicate more innocent athletes.
Nope. But keep pretending it's normal to violate the thresholds for no reason.
You don't need to pretend there is no reason -- you know very well ABP scientists have given many reasons why it's normal to violate 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 thresholds.
Page 9 of the "East African success built entirely on PEDs?" thread
rekrunner wrote:
... And before you go back and rehash the same interpretative mistakes you made back on page 9, ...
Coevett wrote:
The entire career performances of any athlete caught doping should also be annulled, including medals and records. They should also be forced to give back all prizemoney earned, and if they can't, their sponsors should. The present system is crazy. Usain Bolt loses his gold medal because one of his teammates doped, yet Kiprop keeps his gold medal despite failing a test (when he's running way worse times than when he won his gold medal).
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12067312
"a source informed the Weekend Herald that the International Olympic Committee disposed of the Beijing samples from their Lausanne laboratory in 2016. That claim was confirmed by a New Zealand Olympic Committee spokesperson."
Where's pop_pop? He'll love this one.