Half Marathon WR holder Abraham Kiptum busted by Bio Passport!!!!!!!!

Still not seeing the difference. I'm prepared to make the same statements for running, regarding the existence of doping use worldwide. Annual WADA reports is good evidence of the broad use of doping by many nations, in all WADA sports, including both cycling and running. Note that *all nations* was figurative and not literal, neither for cycling nor running. There may exist some nations that are exceptions where no evidence exists. Note that *universal* was an indication of breadth (and not depth), as opposed to "regional" or "national" or "local" or "personal", i.e. doping use, including EPO, in running was NOT confined to East and North Africa, but also exists in Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania, the SAME as in cycling.

You don't analyze very well. Take Morroco, a country with a strong history and culture of doping (numerous positives & ABP sanctions, involved in drug operations, IAAF warnings, etc.), has twelve men who have gone faster than your "pre-90s cutoff" (btw, are you defining all of those times as 100% clean or any possibility of PED influence?). Also, if you want to include Aouita with his Moroccan comrades, then it's 13. The times range from 13:01.98 to 12:49.28 from 1994 to 2005, including five men at 12:50 or faster! (up to the ABP era).

Two confirmed dopers out of this group; Mourhit (EPO positive) & the late Abderrahim Goumri (ABP sanction).

Mourhit (12:49.71/2000) ~1.6 % faster than your 90's cutoff.

Goumri (12:50.25/2005) ~1.5% faster than your 90's cutoff.

However, on an individual basis Mourhit improved ~2.1% from 1998 (13.06xx) to 2000 (12:49.71/PB). His best post-ban time was 13:11xx, ~2.7% slower than his PB.

Gourmi improved ~2.1% from 1999 (13:20.70) to 2001 (13:03.60), and a ~1.1% improvement from 2004 (12:59xx) to 2005 (12:50.2//PB).

Are you talking about confirmed doping cases or suspected doping cases in terms of the replication that you don't see?

I wish you would clarify yourself better -- you're making things confusing. Are you talking strictly dope all the way around here? IOW, you took the top-5 fastest times (6 events) from E. Africa -- and are you concluding they're all doped times? Then you took the top-5 fastest times (same 6 events) from the all the combined Non-African nations -- and are you similarly also concluding that all those times are doped as well?

You must be laying the foundation for this or you couldn't keep questioning why the Non-Africans can't replicate the fast E. African times.

Now...I don't think it's fair that you assume all the top-5 fastest Non-African times are doped which seems to be your motive of constantly stating that the Non-Africans don't run as fast as the E. Africans "to match the assume EPO use."

...should you not include, Salah Hissou in your list ..?

What's Going On Here? wrote:

Now...I don't think it's fair that you assume all the top-5 fastest Non-African times are doped which seems to be your motive of constantly stating that the Non-Africans don't run as fast as the E. Africans "to match the assume EPO use."

It's hard to know what exactly Rekrunner is saying (other than peds don't work), but yes, he assumes that everybody dopes equally, because to think otherwise would be racist.

Not very scientific, it seems to me, to assume that athletes from wildly varying cultures, with vastly differing incentives to dope, and polar opposite anti-doping standards, will all dope equally and always have done.

rekrunner wrote:

What I sought was to correct your statement "If a substance is banned by WADA it is because it is a stimulant that boosts performance", by showing you WADA's published criteria.

I didn't actually raise any objections, or indicate which of the three points is a main concern. In all cases, 2 out 3 criteria must apply.

I think the incidence of doping is high, because, to borrow WADA's words, many athletes/coaches/managers believe in the "potential to enhance ... sport performance" a belief which is based on incomplete knowledge.

Armstronglivs wrote:

And so you consistently seek to minimise either the incidence of doping or its effects in enhancing performance. Your objection appears mainly to the health consequences. Which means you don't really think doping is cheating or that many are doping.

When you say that the "belief" (code word for ignorance) athletes and their support people have in the enhancing effects of doping is based on their "incomplete knowledge" that's as good as your saying they don't really know what they're doing, because doping doesn't really enhance performance. That is despite the fact that many of the drugs still used in various forms today have been around for at least forty years - steroids, testosterone, amphetamines, growth hormone and blood doping, amongst them. Tried and true methods. That is also discounting the more modern variants such as IGF-1. It is like saying the motor car might one day revolutionise transport, fifty years after its invention.

Your implicit claim that athletes don't really know what they are doing when they dope is an assumption based on your view that doping doesn't enhance performance in the way people think it does - so the athletes are kidding themselves, or being duped. Both assumptions - that athletes are naive and that doping isn't really effective - are false. But they are at least consistent with your long-held position, of defending virtue by maintaining that doping is a "serious problem" on the one hand (without really explaining why) while striving relentlessly, on the other, to prove that it doesn't really work - which of course negates the first part of your position. And, ultimately, all of this is to justify the EPO-led performances that have come out of Africa, by trying to prove that doping has played little role in their feats, because it doesn't really enhance performance. You should have been a Jesuit.

Looks like you are responding to "How do you assess "circumstantial evidence is overwhelming"?". Is this purely a subjective thing that is in "the eye of the beholder"?

I was talking about the quote "casual obsever" produced out of context, and what it meant. For better context, see "casual obsever's" post before. If you want to talk about PEDs and African success, you can use the search function to find the other thread where these quotes come from, and you will already find my answers there.

It seems harder for some than others. Pretty sure I never said "equally". One only need consult WADA's annual doping reports to see that many countries dope, but not "equally".

Coevett wrote:

It's hard to know what exactly Rekrunner is saying (other than peds don't work), but yes, he assumes that everybody dopes equally, because to think otherwise would be racist.

Not very scientific, it seems to me, to assume that athletes from wildly varying cultures, with vastly differing incentives to dope, and polar opposite anti-doping standards, will all dope equally and always have done.

"Ignorance", "naive", "doping doesn't really enhance performance", and "doping isn't really effective", are all your words.

Armstronglivs wrote:

When you say that the "belief" (code word for ignorance) athletes and their support people have in the enhancing effects of doping is based on their "incomplete knowledge" that's as good as your saying they don't really know what they're doing, because doping doesn't really enhance performance.

...

Your implicit claim that athletes don't really know what they are doing when they dope is an assumption based on your view that doping doesn't enhance performance in the way people think it does - so the athletes are kidding themselves, or being duped. Both assumptions - that athletes are naive and that doping isn't really effective - are false....

rekrunner wrote:

"Ignorance", "naive", "doping doesn't really enhance performance", and "doping isn't really effective", are all your words.

Interesting - are you implying that

doping does really enhance performance

and

doping is really effective?

Or are you just toying with Armstronglivs again?

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

"Ignorance", "naive", "doping doesn't really enhance performance", and "doping isn't really effective", are all your words.

Interesting - are you implying that

doping does really enhance performance

and

doping is really effective?

Or are you just toying with Armstronglivs again?

Yes, good question - what does he actually mean? They are all reasonable interpretations based on the words he uses. But he ducks them because they reveal him too clearly.

Armstronglivs wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Interesting - are you implying that

doping does really enhance performance

and

doping is really effective?

Or are you just toying with Armstronglivs again?

Yes, good question - what does he actually mean? They are all reasonable interpretations based on the words he uses. But he ducks them because they reveal him too clearly.

Rekrunner reminds me of the fictional character the "Riddler." It's hard to decipher what's he's saying...or not saying. Everyone else seems to speak clearly and get their point across. I think rekrunner is obsessed with obfuscating matters purposesly. ?

You can guarantee that something like this is being used. The AIU has quite reserved about what these latest stars are being caught on.

I thought we had already established WADA's criteria for "doping": - Some doping is harmful, or against the spirit, with no determination of performance enhancement - Some doping has the potential to enhance performance Am I toying with Armstronglivs? Again? The whole history is there for everyone to see. He started by wondering if I realized what I was saying. I answered yes, and I wondered -- does he realize what I am saying? Then we went through a few iterations where he transformed some of my words into his words, added more of his own words, and declared this modified result false.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

"Ignorance", "naive", "doping doesn't really enhance performance", and "doping isn't really effective", are all your words.

Interesting - are you implying that

doping does really enhance performance

and

doping is really effective?

Or are you just toying with Armstronglivs again?

Developing knowledge of performance improvement is a riddle - but not of my making.

This Is Getting Ridiculous wrote:

Rekrunner reminds me of the fictional character the "Riddler." It's hard to decipher what's he's saying...or not saying. Everyone else seems to speak clearly and get their point across. I think rekrunner is obsessed with obfuscating matters purposesly. ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RiddlerGA.JPG

rekrunner wrote:

I thought we had already established WADA's criteria for "doping":

- Some doping is harmful, or against the spirit, with no determination of performance enhancement

- Some doping has the potential to enhance performance

Am I toying with Armstronglivs? Again? The whole history is there for everyone to see.

He started by wondering if I realized what I was saying. I answered yes, and I wondered -- does he realize what I am saying?

Then we went through a few iterations where he transformed some of my words into his words, added more of his own words, and declared this modified result false.

casual obsever wrote:

Interesting - are you implying that

doping does really enhance performance

and

doping is really effective?

Or are you just toying with Armstronglivs again?

You really are full of humbug. What kind of doping is doping that doesn't enhance performance? Asprin? Ibuprofen? Really, in a sports context, who cares what athletes ingest that doesn't materially affect their performance? You? Gimme a break. WADA is not a medical body; if there are health issues involved - and only health issues - then that is the concern of physicians, and WADA is not a medical body. The reality is that performance enhancing drugs typically also present health issues and you artificially separate these concurrent factors; they are simply part of an umbrella that WADA uses to combat doping generally. The health and "against the spirit of sport" criteria may apply to certain recreational drugs like cannabis, crystal meth or perhaps cocaine, but those drugs are not the primary concern of anti doping - and nor are they yours, unless you are secretly a medical or moral crusader.

But the one thing you constantly iterate is that the performance enhancing nature of doping is exaggerated; otherwise you would not consistently refer to performance enhancement as a "belief" - like the belief in the supernatural, little more than fanciful thinking, or even superstition - and not established fact.

rekrunner wrote:

Developing knowledge of performance improvement is a riddle - but not of my making.

Okay....whatever; let's bring it back on topic: We have 3 Kenyans provisionally suspended for an ABP violation in just the last couple of months or so. The first was Sarah Chepchirchir, a 2:19:47 PB (top 25 all-time) & major marathon winner (Tokyo), next was Cyrus Rutto, a 13:03 5000 PB and 2017 WC finalist, and the big one; Abraham Kiptum, HM WR and a 2:05 marathoner.

Chepchirchir is an eye-opener from the standpoint of a top 25 all-time performance considered the depth of the women's marathon, especially with the E. Africans.

Rutto made a WC final, which would be a dream for many elite American 5000 guys. I recall when his ABP suspension became public and the thread was posted here, one of the first comments you made was that his 13:03 wasn't faster than your 90's cutoff time for the 5000 (why would you bring that up -- what does it have to do with him being suspended for an ABP violation?). And since you think 13:03 is apparently slow by your standards, how do you know he's not a 13:20 - 13:25 guy who boosted up with dope to 13:03? And again, making a WC final is nothing to laugh at.

And now we have Mr. Kiptum, a smoker who smoked to a HM WR just last year and has very respectable marathon PB to boot! This case was enough for El K to throw in the towel and give up running damage control for the Kenyans. Lol.

Now how can you say with a straight face that doping had no effect on these runner's performance?

Just a coincidence that another very fast Kenyan women gets caught for doping.

A coincidence that the WR holder of the HM just happens to get caught doping?

3 ABP provisional suspensions in 3 months!...it at least shows that the new WADA-accredited lab in Nairobi is doing it's job.

More to come? ?

Still more questions? OK. Diuretics and Masking agents are doping that doesn't enhance performance. Infusions of greater than 50ml of saline in 6 hours was considered doping (now it is 100ml/12 hours). Many people cared greatly about that, not too long ago. I don't believe Aspirin and Ibuprofen are considered doping. Medical issues and "spirit of the sport" are concerning, but not my primary concerns. I normally wouldn't bring up these concerns, but you are the one who mischaracterized WADA's reasons for banning substances, and then asked me to concede something which was demonstrably false. Maybe WADA is not a medical body, but they do have a Health, Medical and Research Committee. Here is some more insight into how WADA generates the Prohibited List: "The List’s annual revision process is led by WADA, beginning with an initial meeting in January and concluding with the publication of the List by 1 October. This is an extensive consultation process that includes WADA’s List Expert Group gathering information, circulating a draft List among stakeholders, taking their submissions into consideration and revising the draft, followed by review by the Agency’s Health, Medical and Research (HMR) Committee." It's interesting you say "exaggerated" now -- you didn't say that before.