Olympic Marathon Silver Medalist Eunice Kirwa Busted for EPO Doping

The reason that WADA does not have a strict criterion for the evidence of performance enhancement is that such a measure is a chimera. Doping does not allow of that kind of statistical certitude, as much as some here require that it should. As I said previously, it is like the issue concerning testosterone in women's sport; the hormone gives advantage even if the extent of the advantage cannot be precisely measured, given that it will vary from individual to individual. But some use that as an argument for disputing advantage exists, because of the so-called lack of "evidence". Wrong. That a precise figure cannot be put upon the likely gain does not obviate the fact there is a gain or potential gain. WADA's list is not speculative. The drugs have to be shown to be performance enhancing either in themselves or in combination with other drugs. Routine medicines and placebos don't count.

Armstronglivs wrote:

That a precise figure cannot be put upon the likely gain does not obviate the fact there is a gain or potential gain.

That is different than when you wrote that "|t]herefore we must accept that ped's will benefit distance runners, as they do benefit competitors in every other kind of sport" only because they aren't taken out from the doping list.

I think the better-safe-than-sorry and one-ban-fits-all attitudes doesn't mean that there is a clear proven benefit if a certain drug had been banned all across all the disciplines.

I don't argue that the drugs shouldn't be banned, but assuming that ban = performance enhancement is a non sequitor.

And not just "PEDs" per se but performance enhancing methods, i.e. "blood doping." And a little can go a long way:

And the way doping doctors have become creative with blood doping in order to fool the ABP is unbelievable! The methodology of "Operation Aderlass" is simply mind-boggling! Athlete's transporting their own BBs with them on long international flights, reinfusing on the day of competition, withdrawal immediately after competition - with no anomalies detected whatsoever on the ABP. And it took a disgruntled athlete to whistleblow on this operation as WADA had no ability to detect this method of blood doping:

They say that most things that bother us about other people are ironically the same things that we do ourselves. I'd encourage you to go back and reread your posts, Chad. I think that if you read those posts objectively, you'll find that your complaints of insults, posting 15 times in a row, and being a narcissist are clearly things that you know quite a bit about.

Aragon wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That a precise figure cannot be put upon the likely gain does not obviate the fact there is a gain or potential gain.

That is different than when you wrote that "|t]herefore we must accept that ped's will benefit distance runners, as they do benefit competitors in every other kind of sport" only because they aren't taken out from the doping list.

I think the better-safe-than-sorry and one-ban-fits-all attitudes doesn't mean that there is a clear proven benefit if a certain drug had been banned all across all the disciplines.

I don't argue that the drugs shouldn't be banned, but assuming that ban = performance enhancement is a non sequitor.

I am not saying that every banned substance must confer advantage in every kind of sport, including distance running. But then runners don't take random banned substances, do they? They, like all sportsmen, prefer the ones that work best for their kind of sport. For runners this obviously has included EPO's (as well as blood doping), steroids, testosterone, human growth hormone, and amphetamines - some of which were tried and true as far back as the late '60's.

But, like others here, you are overly-concerned that a banned substance must somehow be specifically tailored to the nature of the sport involved in order for it to be effective. This doesn't follow - and isn't so. Elite sportsmen are typically characterised by superior physical qualities. At essence those are qualities of strength, speed, stamina, and mental focus, to those degrees that their sport calls upon those qualities. Banned substances that add to any of those qualities will improve the performance of the athlete. The athletes know this and we have known this through years of sports doping. The banned substances that would have aided Lance Armstrong would aid a Norwegian cross-country skier, a professional tennis player in the 5th set at Roland Garros, a Spanish soccer player in the last quarter of a World Cup match - and a Kenyan distance runner. What each of these sports has in common is extraordinary demands in stamina. Those drugs that add to that (and other qualities favoured by the sport) will confer advantage. Greater aerobic capacity - or "tirelessness", in other words - is an advantage in almost any sport today. This is not rocket-science. If it were, doping would not be the plague that it is in so many sports today.

You gotta be kidding right? Watch every Olympics the US has hosted and here the USA, USA chants. That's who the fans want to win and superstars if Americans can't win. Kenyans are way down the list.....

In another thread I see it has been posted that the IAAF is predicting that "road running will produce a doping scandal bigger than in any other sport". 76% of winners are apparently not tested OOC in the 6 months leading up to competition. The Tour de France has come to road running. And we are meanwhile debating here whether doping actually aids distance runners.

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.

And Rekrunner's excuse died when Kiptum got busted, though it was already on the canvass when both Jeptoo and Sumgong fell.

Same as it ever was... wrote:

https://cleancompetition.org/2018/12/11/small-amount-of-blood-doping-large-impact/

And the way doping doctors have become creative with blood doping in order to fool the ABP is unbelievable! The methodology of "Operation Aderlass" is simply mind-boggling! Athlete's transporting their own BBs with them on long international flights, reinfusing on the day of competition, withdrawal immediately after competition - with no anomalies detected whatsoever on the ABP. And it took a disgruntled athlete to whistleblow on this operation as WADA had no ability to detect this method of blood doping:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/austrian-doping-a-complete-history-of-operation-aderlass/

Notice the picture of Paula for an article on blood doping? Ha!

Armstronglivs wrote:

But then runners don't take random banned substances, do they? They, like all sportsmen, prefer the ones that work best for their kind of sport.

How about this one as an explanation, one that doesn't contradict you.

They more-or-less follow in their decision making process the criterion one of the WADA preferring a "substance or method, [which] alone or in combination with other substances or methods, has the potential to enhance, or enhances, sport performance."

Potential is the interesting word here. If there is a presumed small chance (subelite research + stories) that something improves performance by 1 % with anecdotal stories about athletes turning into supermen, many sportspeople will use that "something".

The anecdotal evidence and science behind blood doping is strong, and indeed it looks as if it enhances performance of most athletes in most endurance sports.

I just assume that all 'world class' Kenyans are on blood bags & EPO.

You'd be silly not to think it.

It would be silly from me to think about items I couldn't care less about.

But here is one item I do find interesting.

When people like to use Brien and Durussel as evidence for the beneficial effect of blood doping, one item nobody has brought up is that there tends to be a tendency that Vo2max increases more after blood doping (vs. same altitude control) up to 3500 meters above sea level:

0 m - 6 %

1500 m - 9 %

2500 m - 14 %

(rHuEPO, from Robach, 2008)

0 m - unfortunately not reported

2278 m - 9 %

3566 m - 13 %

(reinfusion, from Robertson 1982, 1984)

I don't know if there are more papers about this, but it at least looks plausible to assume that body can make more use of the extra RBCs at altitude and therefore the calculated speed gains at 1800 m above sea level could be overstated vs. presumed sea level gain.

About the relatively high importance of RBCs as an independent factor at altitude, this brings into my mind the data I saw (from 1965) in which Bengt Saltin had brought a group of Swedes into altitude and after three weeks their HbMass and Vo2max (at altitude) were elevated as a result of adaptation processes.

But when Saltin tested them again at sea level only days later, detraining had made their Vo2max to fall even when total Hb was still slightly elevated.

Kisorio was proposed as an anecdote of someone who "shows" effect from doping, and recall we should "prefer the anecdotes of sportsmen who have doped". According to the sportsman who has doped, he started doping after Boston 2012 (April).

casual obsever wrote:

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

0% false positives.

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

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.

In a static or abstract test, blood doping may give a superior % gain from point a to point b however history has shown from the busts of both Kiprop, Sumgong and Kiptum or the reports from the dealers themselves with sprinters (Conte and Heredia). The biggest gains come from being on a micro or mild dose of epo all year round. It's the training gains without a post blood withdrawal phase lull that makes it superior to transfusions. As evidence by the simple fact that transfusions couldn't get anyone to run under 27 minutes or 2:07. Now these times are easy and common.

rekrunner wrote:

0% false positives.

I don't think there are any false positives that have resulted in any punitive actions? I can think of Lagat's famous "A" sample positive for EPO but the "B" sample wasn't confirmed -- so he wasn't banned and no harm done.

Wondergirl Marion Jones had an "A" positive for EPO in which the "B" was found to negative. But after she was caught up in the Balco scandal she admitted to doping anyway.

And to think how funny that is -- imagine if she wasn't implicated in Balco and with that "B" sample testing negative she would never been busted for doping and she would be touted as the greatest American female athlete ever. Schools, streets, parks, etc. would all be named after her and she'd be a Goddess. That's why I don't trust multiple Olympic Gold medal winners in any sport - it's too easy for us Kool-aid drinkers to be fooled. Lol.

+1

Exactly.

Looks like you didn't understand the question. I asked you to provide some of these anecdotes clearly showing effect in athletics from your 40 years+ of observation of sport. I didn't ask you to restate your beliefs, but to support them.