Subway Surfers wrote:
Rets of 2.5% and Hgb of 16.6 are not normal, and then there was a fake medical report (I think from a Kenyan hospital) to use epo as a TUE. See the hgb variation too. To quote mindweak "lolz."
Yeah...but try convincing Renato of that.
Kenyans On The Sauce wrote:
Subway Surfers wrote:
Rets of 2.5% and Hgb of 16.6 are not normal, and then there was a fake medical report (I think from a Kenyan hospital) to use epo as a TUE. See the hgb variation too. To quote mindweak "lolz."
Yeah...but try convincing Renato of that.
Well go back two pages and he was accusing me of having a one track mind, so no luck there I'm afraid.
EPeeO wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It seemed to make sense after observing the best performers in non-African countries are often imported from Africa.
I wouldn't make the same call when looking for trends of doping.
But wasn't your "A closer look at EPO-era performances" thread essentially looking for "trends of doping" or why did you do the analysis in the first place?
Lol. It's really not worth your time to respond to such a clown. The poster is clearly a delusional, Epstein-worshipping miscreant.
Why even bother? wrote:
EPeeO wrote:
But wasn't your "A closer look at EPO-era performances" thread essentially looking for "trends of doping" or why did you do the analysis in the first place?
Lol. It's really not worth your time to respond to such a clown. The poster is clearly a delusional, Epstein-worshipping miscreant.
Watching paint dry is far more invigorating than reading his posts.
Yeah it looks pretty clear she intentionally doped and should have been banned and had results annulled.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Rets of 2.5% and Hgb of 16.6 are not normal, and then there was a fake medical report (I think from a Kenyan hospital) to use epo as a TUE. See the hgb variation too. To quote mindweak "lolz."
As you can see from your own quote, it was essentially a closer look at performances, measuring in terms of quality, and quantity the best performances for various categories of athletes. In the established context of the reality of real world performance, we can ask different questions about how well mythology predicts the observed reality, and speculate different factors as to why or why not.
EPeeO wrote:
But wasn't your "A closer look at EPO-era performances" thread essentially looking for "trends of doping" or why did you do the analysis in the first place?
Yes all of that. Everything but proof of 3-10% super human performance benefit.
Everyone's looking for an edge wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
We don't find a large percent. In any case, busts are just proof of faith.
Proof that dopers on occasion screw up, get careless, aren't current on glow times, answer the door, can't afford the best lawyers to bail them out, can't get protection.
FTFY
Is that one too many? You are diverse, but your comment was stupid and desperate. That's not Renato's fault.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Well go back two pages and he was accusing me of having a one track mind, so no luck there I'm afraid.
Epstein worshipping? I thought the Sports Genes was well researched, and illuminating and thought provoking. Since doping fails to be a good explanation for performance observations, we must look for alternate ideas, even if ultimately some of these are wrong too. However, I thought his ProPublica piece on Salazar was sensationalist, and an embarrassment to all the journalists involved.
Why even bother? wrote:
Lol. It's really not worth your time to respond to such a clown. The poster is clearly a delusional, Epstein-worshipping miscreant.
Sorry for these flurry of responses, but it would be rude not to answer all the comments directed to me. Judging by the number of people who keep responding to me, apparently I am way more interesting than paint drying, and people seem to be highly interested in my opinion, somehow bothered by the fact that I can have a different viewpoint based on all of the same facts and observations.
Banging my head against a brick wall wrote:
Watching paint dry is far more invigorating than reading his posts.
rekrunner wrote:
Sorry for these flurry of responses, but it would be rude not to answer all the comments directed to me.
Judging by the number of people who keep responding to me, apparently I am way more interesting than paint drying, and people seem to be highly interested in my opinion, somehow bothered by the fact that I can have a different viewpoint based on all of the same facts and observations.
Banging my head against a brick wall wrote:
Watching paint dry is far more invigorating than reading his posts.
Nope beige paint is certainly more interesting.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Rets of 2.5% and Hgb of 16.6 are not normal, and then there was a fake medical report (I think from a Kenyan hospital) to use epo as a TUE. See the hgb variation too. To quote mindweak "lolz."
Other lolz in that document that may remind us of Paula's changing stories and her 16.2 g/dl instead of her normal 13-something g/dl:
The panel is of the view that there would be no need for the Athlete to constantly change and adapt her story if she did not have something to hide, i.e. that rEPO was taken in order to enhance performance.
Professor Schumacher said that even two samples would be sufficient to generate a profile [for the ABP].
Professor Schumacher said that 16.6G/dl was considerably outside of the population reference expectation for female athletes.
lolz
rekrunner wrote:
I didn't say you did, but that it is done.
Correct. The very definition of a straw man argument, for that had nothing to do with me.
rekrunner wrote:
I explained in detail exactly where my numbers came from -- I don't see how anyone possessing a minimum of intelligence could have been misled, at least not by me.
Also correct. That's rare. But again a distraction, because my point was that the Barrios - Rupp comparison cannot help determining the advantages from EPO doping, not that I couldn't see where those - here useless - numbers came from.
Not surprisingly, you never explained in detail exactly how the Barrios - Rupp comparison would help you here. Instead you went straight to your typical obfuscation mode.
everyone seems to be going in S^1.
I can never buy any theory of inherent east African attributes that predispose them to untouchable performances. First, there's too much anecdotal evidence of doping, and 2nd there's been a large enough amount of busts that had Kenya been Russia, it would have been banned.
Also, if you look at it, even with extremely low interest in running in much of the world, and it being hugely popular in east Africa, they still can't produce more runners in the top 50 in the most important of distances - the 1500/mile than non-east Africans. If they were so incredibly predisposed to such astounding natural performances, they would easily have the top 50 out 50, but no, they have maybe 17-18. The reality is that there is nothing inherently helpful genetically that they have other than that they are tiny, averaging 120 pounds for males.
no explanation wrote:
I can never buy any theory of inherent east African attributes that predispose them to untouchable performances. First, there's too much anecdotal evidence of doping, and 2nd there's been a large enough amount of busts that had Kenya been Russia, it would have been banned.
Also, if you look at it, even with extremely low interest in running in much of the world, and it being hugely popular in east Africa, they still can't produce more runners in the top 50 in the most important of distances - the 1500/mile than non-east Africans. If they were so incredibly predisposed to such astounding natural performances, they would easily have the top 50 out 50, but no, they have maybe 17-18. The reality is that there is nothing inherently helpful genetically that they have other than that they are tiny, averaging 120 pounds for males.
https://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists/middlelong/1500-metres/outdoor/men/senior/2018?regionType=world&page=1&bestResultsOnly=true
lol
0.4/10
Lol. expected response from a Epsteinoista
afaff wrote:
Lol. expected response from a Epsteinoista
lol expected response from a racist turd.
no explanation wrote:
I can never buy any theory of inherent east African attributes that predispose them to untouchable performances. First, there's too much anecdotal evidence of doping, and 2nd there's been a large enough amount of busts that had Kenya been Russia, it would have been banned.
Also, if you look at it, even with extremely low interest in running in much of the world, and it being hugely popular in east Africa, they still can't produce more runners in the top 50 in the most important of distances - the 1500/mile than non-east Africans. If they were so incredibly predisposed to such astounding natural performances, they would easily have the top 50 out 50, but no, they have maybe 17-18. The reality is that there is nothing inherently helpful genetically that they have other than that they are tiny, averaging 120 pounds for males.
https://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists/middlelong/1500-metres/outdoor/men/senior/2018?regionType=world&page=1&bestResultsOnly=true
+1
This year there were two Kenyans in the top 10, admittedly the top two, but both under the same coach and both training partners of Kiprop. There are six Kenyans in the top 20, the same as Europe.
Kenya has an official population of 60 million, although likely a lot larger than that, given the Third World inability to record births etc there. It's also demographically A LOT younger than the European population. Givens the dozens of global sports European athletes compete at, compared to the one that Kenyans do (distance running) it's fair to say that there are probably far more Kenyans devoting themselves to middle-distance running than in the entire continent of Europe (possibly the entire rest of the world). Yet despite the fact that doping is out of control there, they still do not dominate middle-distance running, and in fact the two brightest stars around are Jakob and (obviously still earlier in his development) Max Burgin.
The best Kenyans today run no faster than greats like Snell, Ryun, Coe, Ovett, Cram would almost certainly be able to run today, even just with modern shoes and tracks.
The fastest 1500m time by a Kenyan, NOT from the EPO free for all era, and NOT at Monaco, and NOT busted for EPO, is AUGUSTINE KIPRONO CHOGE with a 3:29.47 in 2009. The next fastest is Potato Tim 3:29.77 this year in Paris. Coe, Ovett, and Cram were running these kind of times 30 years ago.
Middle-distance has declined markedly in Europe over the last 30 years, but now there's real signs of it becoming popular again, likely because of social media and running apps like Strava, and because guys like Nick Willis and the older Ingebrigtsens proved that clean non-African runners can compete at the top level. Now talents like Jakob are coming to the fore, surely going to be running close to the WR in the next few years, and with others emerging too, most notably in Britain, the traditional power house of European middle-distance.
casual obsever wrote:
Subway Surfers wrote:
Rets of 2.5% and Hgb of 16.6 are not normal, and then there was a fake medical report (I think from a Kenyan hospital) to use epo as a TUE. See the hgb variation too. To quote mindweak "lolz."
Other lolz in that document that may remind us of Paula's changing stories and her 16.2 g/dl instead of her normal 13-something g/dl:
The panel is of the view that there would be no need for the Athlete to constantly change and adapt her story if she did not have something to hide, i.e. that rEPO was taken in order to enhance performance.
Professor Schumacher said that even two samples would be sufficient to generate a profile [for the ABP].
Professor Schumacher said that 16.6G/dl was considerably outside of the population reference expectation for female athletes.
lolz
Ha! Yes, I'd completely forgotten that Jeptoo's suspicious blood values are identical to those of Paula's. That is "lolz" but I'm still trying to work out what is more unusual; a weak-minded female with an Hgb of 16.6 or a "properly trained" guy with a Hct of 53?