Olympic Marathon Silver Medalist Eunice Kirwa Busted for EPO Doping

It's a false impression, because I think prevalence is high. Even after all my analyses, the doping problem remains big. I'm also concerned about non-East African distance running failures.

Armstronglivs wrote:

That is also my impression. He seeks to whittle away, point by point, the evidence that suggests a higher rather than lower level of doping, so that under his analysis the problem all but disappears. And if it isn't the prevalence that is so reduced he also argues its effects are little more than a misguided placebo in the one area which most concerns him - East African distance running success.

rekrunner wrote:

Kisorio ran slower while on drugs.

There is no evidence for that.

Remember, you were ultimately proven wrong when you said the same about Jeptoo after her first positive test.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Kisorio ran slower while on drugs.

There is no evidence for that.

Once again, I like your posts. But what do you mean?

He has run faster after the ban.

Yes, he ran faster after his ban, but we don't know whether or not he is clean now. So any argument, one way or the other, would be based on a belief, not a fact.

Similarly, Jeptoo ran slower when caught than before, and rek used that as an argument that doping slowed her down. Later then we learned that she was doping earlier, specifically when running her PR at age 33.

rekrunner wrote:

I don't doubt high prevalence.

Kisorio ran slower while on drugs.

Now you sound like that broken record Canova. Lol.

He ran faster on the marathon and the road 10k post-ban. His HM PB was set pre-ban - so there's a little bit of a mixed bag here.

However, neither you nor the "coaching legend" can prove that he didn't resume doping after his ban. The recidivism rate is high with dopers. He's a confirmed doper from doping powerhouse nation. Why wouldn't try it again but this time under better anti-doping countermeasures (didn't he say he runs so smooth on dope?)

Once they are confirmed for doping they lose all creditability with me (and they should with you!). IMO, they should be lifetimed ban for the first offense.

You can continue to defend and rationalize these dopers from doping powerhouse nations if that strokes your ego. Lol.

casual obsever wrote:

Yes, he ran faster after his ban, but we don't know whether or not he is clean now. So any argument, one way or the other, would be based on a belief, not a fact.

Similarly, Jeptoo ran slower when caught than before, and rek used that as an argument that doping slowed her down. Later then we learned that she was doping earlier, specifically when running her PR at age 33.

Yeah...too funny with rekrunner - that's all he talks about with Jeptoo (does he have a soft heart for her also?).

And he forgets she won the race beating the likes of the Dibaba's, Kiplagat & Hastings. Also, it was quite windy that day in the "windy city" with stiff sustained 15+ mpw winds - that probably had something to do with the slower times.

What a disingenuous response but typical of your modus operandi. You pretend that no one, either on a thread like this or on countless others, has given compelling examples of the effects of doping in this sport. Kiprop, Ramzi, Kiptum, Jeptoo - the list of dishonour goes on. But by treating each commentator as an isolated view and not part of what has become a chorus on this issue your intent is clear. If you can isolate opposing arguments you can reduce them - they become manageable against your own contingent of ersatz statistics and rhetorical questions. In a courtroom it is the totality of the evidence that matters; in your world each item of evidence is treated as though it is the only piece of evidence. How convenient. And false.

You also dismiss evidence relating to doping in other sports as though this evidence has no bearing on the sport of running. Again - disingenuous. Or plain dumb. Most performance enhancing drugs will increase strength, speed, stamina, and powers of mental focus and concentration., depending on the type of drug. That is why they are banned. Increases in any of those areas will benefit any sport - because speed, strength, stamina and mental focus are what sport is built on. Doping occurs in chess, championship darts, and curling. It is everywhere. But that can be dismissed because it isn't distance running. Distance running is uniquely not susceptible to the benefits of doping. Hopelessly naive - or in denial. You also fail to recognise that most performance enhancing drugs - steroids, synthetic testosterone, human growth, amphetamines etc - were not developed for the benefits of sportsmen but for medical reasons to correct deficiencies in the sickly. But what aids the infirm builds super athletes amongst the healthy. Sometimes I wonder if you live on Mars.

What a disingenuous response but typical of your modus operandi. You pretend that no one, either on a thread like this or on countless others, has given compelling examples of the effects of doping in this sport. Kiprop, Ramzi, Kiptum, Jeptoo - the list of dishonour goes on. But by treating each commentator as an isolated view and not part of what has become a chorus on this issue your intent is clear. If you can isolate opposing arguments you can reduce them - they become manageable against your own contingent of ersatz statistics and rhetorical questions. In a courtroom it is the totality of the evidence that matters; in your world each item of evidence is treated as though it is the only piece of evidence. How convenient. And false.

You also dismiss evidence relating to doping in other sports as though this evidence has no bearing on the sport of running. Again - disingenuous. Or plain dumb. Most performance enhancing drugs will increase strength, speed, stamina, and powers of mental focus and concentration, depending on the type of drug. That is why they are banned. Increases in any of those areas will benefit any sport - because speed, strength, stamina and mental focus are what sport is built on. Doping occurs in chess, championship darts, and curling. It is everywhere. But that can be dismissed because it isn't distance running. Distance running is uniquely not susceptible to the benefits of doping. Hopelessly naive - or in denial. You also fail to recognise that most performance enhancing drugs - steroids, synthetic testosterone, human growth hormone, amphetamines etc - were not developed for the benefits of sportsmen but for medical reasons to correct deficiencies in the sickly. But what aids the infirm builds super athletes amongst the healthy. Sometimes I wonder if you live on Mars.

His 28:18 when he was busted, compared to his PR is evidence. Here's what I remember: I was only wrong when I said the IAAF gave no details about Boston. I was not wrong about Jeptoo's performance. I said Shalane was a big reason Jeptoo, and others, ran a fast time. That was not proven wrong. I said Jeptoo, weeks after her EPO positive, ran 6 minutes slower than Boston in Chicago. That was not proven wrong.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Kisorio ran slower while on drugs.

There is no evidence for that.

Remember, you were ultimately proven wrong when you said the same about Jeptoo after her first positive test.

More correctly, I said she ran 6 minutes slower in Chicago, when on EPO, as an argument that non-doping reasons are the explanation for the 6 minute difference.

casual obsever wrote:

Yes, he ran faster after his ban, but we don't know whether or not he is clean now. So any argument, one way or the other, would be based on a belief, not a fact.

Similarly, Jeptoo ran slower when caught than before, and rek used that as an argument that doping slowed her down. Later then we learned that she was doping earlier, specifically when running her PR at age 33.

What? I didn't ever say Kisorio was clean or dirty after the ban. You can't prove "recidivism rate is high". Stating historical facts about performances is not a defense or rationalization of doping. Lance gained some credibility when he finally confessed. Kisorio similarly went public with a Seppelt interview. I would also be for a lifetime ban, even bi-directional, if testing were more certain.

What? For the most part, I only said Jeptoo ran fast in Boston, thanks to Shalane, and 6 minutes slower in Chicago, after her EPO positive. I wouldn't bring up Jeptoo at all, and only respond to counter claims I didn't make. I don't forget details like "windy" and other non-doping factors affecting time, but make these statements to highlight that doping is not the only significant factor to consider for performance.

Altitude-Native Doping wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Yes, he ran faster after his ban, but we don't know whether or not he is clean now. So any argument, one way or the other, would be based on a belief, not a fact.

Similarly, Jeptoo ran slower when caught than before, and rek used that as an argument that doping slowed her down. Later then we learned that she was doping earlier, specifically when running her PR at age 33.

Yeah...too funny with rekrunner - that's all he talks about with Jeptoo (does he have a soft heart for her also?).

And he forgets she won the race beating the likes of the Dibaba's, Kiplagat & Hastings. Also, it was quite windy that day in the "windy city" with stiff sustained 15+ mpw winds - that probably had something to do with the slower times.

rekrunner wrote:

Here's what I remember:

I was only wrong when I said the IAAF gave no details about Boston.

I was not wrong about Jeptoo's performance.

I said Shalane was a big reason Jeptoo, and others, ran a fast time. That was not proven wrong.

I said Jeptoo, weeks after her EPO positive, ran 6 minutes slower than Boston in Chicago. That was not proven wrong.

By Van Rensselaer Townsend

"Now that the Kenyan red dust has settled and the New York race winds subsided, let’s step back, and perhaps forward, and look at the revelations and ramifications of Jeptoo’s alleged positive drug test for EPO.

First, we should look at what EPO does and examine what many say it doesn’t do. Let’s start with the latter claim that any super-talented Kenyan would win a marathon anyway without using the blood-boosting drug. Here, we hear the Kenyan Federation clamor that “outside forces” such as agents, coaches and doctors are taking advantage of naive professional runners. Note that appellation “professional.” Yes, these athletes are pros. They are not some eager kids dreaming of winning a World Marathon Major. And, yes, I’ve been in Kenya and heard the “afraid of taking an aspirin” refrain, but an experienced professional runner who has flown across and around the world, bunked in luxury hotels, and been feted at celebratory banquets is not some rube or ingenue who can’t think for him or herself.

These pros surely know that even a small percentage increase in oxygen-rich red blood cells can give them an edge late in a 42k prize money race. I mention “late” because EPO appears to provide the power to throw down a ridiculously fast final 5k finish after 23 miles of already racing fast. It’s one thing to crank out one’s fastest 5k split after keeping the early pace dawdling for tactical or meteorological reasons. Witness Kipsang’s and Desisa’s breakaway after New York’s lead pack stuck to an historically SLOW pace as they battled the heavy headwinds. Now contrast that situation to what Jeptoo did at Boston. She blazed through her last kilometers on top of an historically FAST first 30k where Shalane Flanagan towed the leaders through successive 5k markers that broke every previous women’s race course record. So, for Jeptoo to lay down such a torrid 5k finish when her legs should have felt normal fatigue was surreal and suspicious. EPO can do that.

Way back in 2003, Outside Magazine ran a story by a writer, Stuart Stevens, who agreed to be a test-subject for the effects of PEDS. I’m not sure the pharmaceuticals were even nicknamed as such back then ! Here’s what Stevens had to say about an endurance cycling event while he was using EPO: “After the EPO kicked in (meaning his buildup injection regimen), I rode a 200-miler and I felt strong, ready to hammer. The next day I easily could have ridden another 200.”

It is clear that EPO is a drug that makes a significant difference in athletic performance for any individual. And now we also know what happens when EPO is used by an already gifted Kenyan runner."

Look at the end of the race! She's full gas in the last few miles blowing away the other competitors including the Belarusian doper. Lol. At the finish she shows no signs of fatigue kissing the pavement in jubilation and then runs around celebrating like she went for a Sunday jog. A rocket-fueled performance....glad they examined the ABP data and flushed the performance!

You said you trust anecdotes from sportsmen. Once again, is it possible for you -- not "casual", not "crazy", but you, Armstronglivs, with 40+ years of observation of all sports -- to share some of these sportsmen anecdotes of "effect" from sportsmen in the sport of athletics, that has formed the basis of your firm opinions and beliefs? This has now become a rhetorical question. I note you did not bring the anecdote of Kisorio -- someone else did that for you. Unfortunately, the anecdote of Kisorio is one of "prevalence" ("I was told everyone is doing it") and not "effect". I don't doubt high prevalence. The examples of Kiprop, Ramzi, Kiptum, Jeptoo, and the rest of the list, are not anecdotes from the athletes, that "have directly experienced its effects for themselves", sharing their direct experiences of "effect". Generally a short list examples are not compelling, because "proof by example" is not compelling. Some of the examples, like Kisorio, and Kiprop, (and the list goes on) are not compelling because we do not know if their PBs, and/or medal wins, were clean or dirty. And what we do know about their doping often correlates with slower times. It is dumb to think that "effect" is comparable across sports, or even across different events in the same sport. Hamilton (personal anecdote from a sportsman who has doped) told us that clean riders could win 1-day challenges against dopers, but that it was not possible in a 3-week grand tour. This demonstrates the need for specific anecdotes from distance runners in distance events. If distance running is susceptible to the benefits of doping, and the "totality" is so compelling, why do you need to appeal to sprinting or baseball or cycling or chess?

I don't doubt Van was a great coach and man, but it looks like he is repeating much of the same beliefs about EPO. Is this a personal anecdote? Did he have any direct experience coaching Kenyans, and using EPO?

And I agree with him about the important role of Shalane to help break the course record.

rekrunner wrote:

His 28:18 when he was busted, compared to his PR is evidence.

Only if he was clean when running his PR.

rekrunner wrote:

I didn't ever say Kisorio was clean or dirty after the ban.

Then what do you mean with "Kisorio ran slower while on drugs"?

That he was clean in 2010/11? Same thing, no evidence for that either.

Caught doping in 2012.

PRs:

2010 12:57.83

2011 26:54.25

2011 58:46

2018 2:04:53

rekrunner wrote:

I would also be for a lifetime ban, even bi-directional, if testing were more certain.

What do you mean by "if testing were more certain?" Please elaborate.

The problem is much simpler to understand than you allow it be. It is well-established that a range of drugs will enhance performance in every kind of sporting competition. To suggest that drugs will not offer advantage in a sport like running is to fail to understand how ped's work. Anything that adds to strength, speed or aerobic performance will benefit runners. If this were not so there would be no credible argument for banning ped's in distance running. But no anti-doping body takes that view, and none shows any inclination to move in that direction. Therefore we must accept that ped's will benefit distance runners, as they do benefit competitors in every other kind of sport. This is reinforced by the knowledge we have that many distance runners continue to dope, and most informed estimates put the prevalence as much higher than the numbers who test positive. All this is beyond dispute now. It is therefore of largely academic interest to try to measure the exact degree of improvement or advantage that ped's provide, to any individual competitor and in any sport. There are too many variables to establish a figure that would apply in every instance, as athletes differ individually and the ped's they take, as well as the dosages, will typically vary. It is like the argument about testosterone in women's sport; we may not be able to know the exact contribution that the hormone makes to sporting achievement in an individual athlete but we do know that it is likely to be significant, because of the difference between males and females at the elite level. Hence for that reason, testosterone is listed as a banned substance, because it is performance enhancing. So it follows with other ped's. I really don't care whether EPOs, for example, aid distance runners by the upper estimates that some have made or by the more conservative estimates provided; what I do accept is that like other drugs used it is performance enhancing. These drugs are not neutral and nor are they placebos. If this were not so there would be no reason for banning them, no reason for drug testing and no reason for Kenyan marathon runners to use them. All of the above is predicated on the view that the drugs work. They aren't wrong. To argue otherwise is frankly ridiculous and to debate the exact influence a specific drug will have for this or that athlete is redundant; they gain - that is enough to know.