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

Let's eliminate seeming implications. When you have a list that ignores 27 out of the top 32, that is a measure of 15.6% knowledge, and 84.4% ignorance. 84.4% ignorance gives the ignorant a lot of leverage to say whatever they want about the global population. Let's assume, based on a recent study raw survey result, that the "true" doping rate is 43.6%. "crazy doper" gave us an "exhaustive list" with 5 convicted dopers. That means the other 27 are undetermined. At a rate of 43.6%, 9 of those undetermined athletes will also be dopers (e.g. Kirwa), and then the remaining 18 will be CLEAN. Even at the rate of 43.6%, we can still say that "the most part of top athletes are CLEAN". What we have here, is one experienced coach with personal knowledge of what it takes to develop elite performances, saying that "the most part of 32" are clean, versus a large body of anonymous posters, with no real personal knowledge, saying "doubt it".

Erotic Pigeon Overlord wrote:

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:

What do I say? I am not surprised by a Kenyan-Bahraini caught for doping, or that a Kenyan women is able to run 2:21.

Doping remains a problem. All is not well and all is not good.

If only she, and Bahrain, listened to me, she would not have taken the risk of doping.

It reinforces my belief that the belief in doping for marathon performance is widespread.

The doping with female marathoners is crazy! wrote:

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

Eunice Jepkirui Kirwa popped for EPO:

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!

Your choice of words always gives you away. You finally say the "belief" in doping for marathon performance is widespread, when the correct statement is to say the practice of doping is widespread. A belief can only be inferred from events, and the events - the actual practice and widespread incidence of doping - are what reveal the seriousness of the problem. But how strange it is, that amongst all those doping athletes, their coaches, trainers and doctors, you alone think the benefits of doping are illusory, that they are all subject to a strange form of superstition and not knowledge derived either from science or experience. Perhaps your own experience of doping was disappointing - because you must have tried it to be so sure it is a waste of time.

OK, the practice is also widespread, because the belief is widespread. I would agree that non-believers don't practice, unless they are forced to by another believer. "Widespread" is a admittedly a rather vague term. I would say 5% doping is widespread. If you want to show doping benefit, you need a different method than doping busts of fast runners.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your choice of words always gives you away. You finally say the "belief" in doping for marathon performance is widespread, when the correct statement is to say the practice of doping is widespread. A belief can only be inferred from events, and the events - the actual practice and widespread incidence of doping - are what reveal the seriousness of the problem. But how strange it is, that amongst all those doping athletes, their coaches, trainers and doctors, you alone think the benefits of doping are illusory, that they are all subject to a strange form of superstition and not knowledge derived either from science or experience. Perhaps your own experience of doping was disappointing - because you must have tried it to be so sure it is a waste of time.

rekrunner wrote:

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

So says the IAAF's paid spam-bot. But even your employer takes it seriously, hence Russia has been banned.

Russia was not banned for doping, but for failing to anti-dope. The leaked data published in the Sunday Times played very little role in the decision to ban Russia. With respect to figures like the medal counts, which combined "likely doping" and "suspicious" results, I concur with the WADA IC: "It was, in any event, improper to group "suspicious" results and "likely doping" into a single category, ..."

Subway Surfers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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

So says the IAAF's paid spam-bot. But even your employer takes it seriously, hence Russia has been banned.

rekrunner wrote:

OK, the practice is also widespread, because the belief is widespread.

I would agree that non-believers don't practice, unless they are forced to by another believer.

"Widespread" is a admittedly a rather vague term. I would say 5% doping is widespread.

If you want to show doping benefit, you need a different method than doping busts of fast runners.

C'mon rekrunner....don't act intellectually deprived; you're smarter than that.

How long has EPO been around? ? Maybe 3+ decades now? (There's evidence of use way back in 88 at Calgary & Seoul). Blood transfusions have been around a lot longer but involve less availability & practicality due to the money and resources needed. EPO is more cost effective and can be shipped practically anywhere all over the world to the athletes or coaches and administration can be started immediately without the long downtime of blood withdrawls as well as all the other hassles involving transfusions (e.g, storage, re-infusions, blood bags getting mixed up, etc.).

This is what made it so widespread across the globe - and some athletes could use it covertly without anyone even knowing including the athlete's family & coach. And since most African nations wouldn't have the money & resources needed for blood doping, EPO made the perfect endurance drug for those that desired to dope.

Therefore, if it didn't provide some level of performance enhancement benefits after 3 decades of widespread use, why would athletes and coaches continue to use it for so long? Athletes & coaches aren't stupid - they wouldn't waste their time & money on drug that is ineffective and solely based on "belief" (would you use a pharmaceutical or supplement that didn't seem to be providing any benefits?). And considering the huge number of EPO pops and ABP sanctions for hematological anomalies suspected with EPO use, athletes & coaches must still think the benefits far outweigh the risk of getting caught.

You act like EPO was just developed last year and athletes & coaches are in the experimental phase with it. This is an endurance drug that has 3+ decades of world wide use and despite much better testing and the ABP....continues to be abused.

Let's Think This Through wrote:

Therefore, if it didn't provide some level of performance enhancement benefits after 3 decades of widespread use, why would athletes and coaches continue to use it for so long? Athletes & coaches aren't stupid - they wouldn't waste their time & money on drug that is ineffective and solely based on "belief" (would you use a pharmaceutical or supplement that didn't seem to be providing any benefits?). And considering the huge number of EPO pops and ABP sanctions for hematological anomalies suspected with EPO use, athletes & coaches must still think the benefits far outweigh the risk of getting caught.

You act like EPO was just developed last year and athletes & coaches are in the experimental phase with it. This is an endurance drug that has 3+ decades of world wide use and despite much better testing and the ABP....continues to be abused.

+1

I truly don't understand how rekrunner can genuinely believe that the athletes (and their coaches) taking it could be so dumb as to think it is working when it isn't. Is rekrunner really saying that when an athlete starts taking EPO, there is no improvement, but for some reason the athlete continues to risk their career by taking it?? And they don't share their experience with fellow cheat athletes/coaches (and it looks at this stage that virtually all top Kenyans are doping and all of them know that), so that even after 30 years of hundreds or thousands of athletes doping with EPO, each new doper is essentially self-experimenting in the dark with it? Or is rekrunner saying that EPO does lead to small improvements, but this is placebo, and these small improvements are sufficient for athletes to continue risking everything by taking it? And in the case of 'state sponsored' doping in the case of Russia, where athletes were apparently being monitored by sophisticated teams of coaches and doctors etc, and yet these guys too were so dumb that they couldn't spot that EPO doesn't actually work?

Becoming clearer every day that somebody must be paying Rekrunner. I hope we get to find out exactly who eventually.

rekrunner wrote:

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.

My doubts aren't "justified", although about half of the elite is doping, and experts estimate that the elite runners benefit up to, or even in excess of 3% from blood doping alone, not to mention roids, HGH, amphetamines etc.? Keep telling yourself that.

And, you are wrong with claiming that "the "explicit for elite runners" references are not based on observation of elite runners" - see Schumacher, Ashenden, who actually did observe how blood doping correlates with performances. You know this, but you can't resist to continue with your trolling.

And, you want to argue about what you think I wanted to say? LOL.

Let's Think This Through wrote:

You act like EPO was just developed last year and athletes & coaches are in the experimental phase with it. This is an endurance drug that has 3+ decades of world wide use and despite much better testing and the ABP....continues to be abused.

+1

The practice is widespread, because the knowledge is widespread.

Well we know something is working because the times done by formerly fully trained great athletes from the near past can now be run for double that distance. That is a monumental improvement in endurance, a revolution yet for some reason the human race in general hasn't also experienced these health gains. 13:08 is a wonderful time for 5,000m but that speed can now be kept up for 10,000m, and this same person can finish the 10,000m with a 5,000m in 12:57, faster than the world record up until 1994. The number of humans to have run a sub 4 minute mile is still extremely limited yet 'boom!' Mid-90s suddenly a zombie can run two without stopping. Look at the half, 60 minutes is spectacularly fast, to think someone can keep up that pace for 42.2km is extremely hard to believe and currently he has plans to attempt two 59s without stopping. A time of 3:27 requires someone to go through 1km in 2:18 and keep going at that pace, with all that lactic acid for another 500m. "It" works, you bet it works and a certain coach's claims of greatly improved training, is just b.s.

Forgive my alzheimers. Remind me again where Schumacher and Ashenden looked at elite running performance improvements?

casual obsever wrote:

And, you are wrong with claiming that "the "explicit for elite runners" references are not based on observation of elite runners" - see Schumacher, Ashenden, who actually did observe how blood doping correlates with performances.

I stopped reading there.

Coevett wrote:

I truly don't understand ...

rekrunner wrote:

I stopped reading there.

Coevett wrote:

I truly don't understand ...

But nobody seems to understand your position rekrunner, or at least your 'argument' for it. Even Canova, who seems to be saying much the same thing (far more concisely), doesn't ever mention you or use your 'arguments' or 'statistics' for support. It's as though even he wants to distance himself from you.

I would not use your words, but I think athletes and coaches do not have an accurate understanding of what they could do without EPO, versus what EPO will do for them. If they want to increase red blood cells, high-low training is also scientifically proven, and legal. I don't need to speculate with some indirect reverse logic that if it didn't work they wouldn't use it for three decades. Assuming, as you said, "it so widespread across the globe", for the last three+ decades, and blood doping probably dates as far back as post-1968, I have already looked at all time fastest performances around the globe to see how times have changed. Prompted by "casual obsever" I also took a quick look at the evolution of progress since the performances of Ryun and Clarke and Clayton dating back 50 years.

That is why the belief is so widespread ...

Coevett wrote:

But nobody seems to understand ...

rekrunner wrote:

What we have here, is one experienced coach with personal knowledge of what it takes to develop elite performances, saying that "the most part of 32" are clean,

A coach with incredibly little credibility who twists and changes his story and explanations.

That is not funny.

Sunday Times 2015, advised by Ashenden + Parisotto:

"men’s final at London 2012" - elite runners, won by doorbell/stopwatch Farah in 13:41. 30 seconds of 13:41 would be 3.7%; 30 seconds of 14:11 still 3.5%.

CAS Karamasheva hearing:

Karamasheva: elite runner

And the peer-reviewed statement about the elite (DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0156157):

Right. I won't waste your time repeating the issues with all of these references.

To say 5% doping would be widespread, as you do, is to say it isn't widespread at all. It is probably the state of sport as it was before 1960. It also conflicts with every informed understanding, that the doping busts are merely the tip of the iceberg. In the word of one commentator, "for every cockroach discovered in the hallway there are dozens behind the walls." WADA estimates doping as being anywhere between 15-40%, while Victor Conte suggests up to 90% of track and field Olympians. But we can have no definitive statistics on this, as much as you think we can, because no one admits to doping who hasn't been caught, and all involved work to ensure it's active concealment, which they are mostly able to do.

You mislead when you hold up the word "doping" as a generalised practice that you can dismiss as little more than a superstition sportsmen adhere to in the unfounded belief they it will benefit them. The only way to understand what doping does is to know what each individual stimulant does to human physiology to affect performance. These stimulants, like the recently banned meldonium, for example - which is a drug for those with heart conditions - is shown both in the laboratory and on the sports field to work - it boosts natural aerobic capacity. The connection between the stimulant chosen and improved performance is unmistakeable - and unarguable. One of the sadder sights in sport is of a repentant convicted doper trying to regain their best while clean; the reality is that their best was only possible through doping.