Olympic and world champion Asbel Kiprop has tested positive

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

It is also unconvincing to try and detract attention away from his own guilt by claiming that it was against protocol to be given a warning the day before. .

Which, is materially not true. The person collecting the sample calls ahead. It just isn't necessary to literally surprise an athlete.

My favorite part of the statement is specifically mentioning leaving the top off the sample.

1. According to Absel, he was notified of the issue in Feb, but the story took 3 months before it was made public. More than enough time for him to create a "narrative" .

2.No word from The Kenyan Athletic Board, but it was Absel who confirmed it via his testimony.

I don't think he will get off this case.

EX Sur wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

There are lots of reasons to doubt the process. All of which benefit the federation, rather than the athlete.

A couple of things learned from RUSADA coordinating the nation's doping programs.

Swapped samples are possible

Tamper-proof containers aren't tamper proof.

IAAF was accepting bribes so Russian athletes would not test positive.

Russian athletes also had to pay bribes to not test positive.

Excellent surmise.

Especially playing on the "Russians are cheaters" angle, that all good Westerners believe.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

It's a real shame that they obviously did not read my "Closer look at performances in the EPO era" thread

Good one. Instead of listening to their coaches, doctors, and athletes, the cheats should read your ramblings?

And do what you say?

Oh man, now you really crack me up.

+1

Speak Up wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Which, is materially not true. The person collecting the sample calls ahead. It just isn't necessary to literally surprise an athlete.

My favorite part of the statement is specifically mentioning leaving the top off the sample.

1. According to Asbel, he was notified of the issue in Feb, but the story took 3 months before it was made public. More than enough time for him to create a "narrative" .

2.No word from The Kenyan Athletic Board, but it was Absel who confirmed it via his testimony.

I don't think he will get off this case.

His excuse is terribly weak unless AK is really scary.

Looks like I was correct, and you seem to agree, that you would ignore half the facts.

I directly cited the authors in the very sameTubingen paper.

Here are some more direct quotes, from the authors, from the same paper.

Your "44%" figure includes "hasty responses", something the authors acknowledged might suggest "carelessness or failure to adequately read the instructions." "Interestingly, fast responders yielded even higher prevalence estimates, ... possibly as an artifact of hasty responding." "Such behavioral rigidity has been documented in prior psychological studies".

All this suggests that even the authors don't believe "44%" is the "accurate one".

Not just me -- Ashenden and Parisotto say similar things, when discussing suspicious blood values against population thresholds.

Altitude training makes blood more suspicious, yet is not cheating.

Normal genetics can make blood suspicious, yet it is not cheating.

"Indeed, Dr Ashenden himself has previously noted that if a 'no start' rule is adopted based on a maximum HGB level calculated using general population data, 'a significant proportion of athletes (up to 5%) may exceed the threshold because of genetic factors and be unfairly banned from competition'.(127) And Dr Ashenden and Mr Parisotto co-authored a 2002 paper that estimated that 10% of male athletes living at altitude would fail a 'no start' rule without blood-doping at all.(128)

(127) Ashenden, A strategy to deter blood doping in sport, Haematologica, March 2002 87(3): 225-232, at p.227 (‘The concept of an arbitrary limit as incorporated by the Hematocrit rule has since attracted criticism because a significant proportion of athletes (up to 5%) may exceed the threshold because of genetic factors and be unfairly banned from competition. It may also permit athletes to titrate their Hb/Hct to approach but not exceed the limits adopted by their sport, or to expand plasma volume and thus remain below allowable limits’). See also Jelkmann W and Lundby C, Blood doping and its detection, Blood, 1 September 2011, Vol 118(9), 2395-2404 ('However, Hb and Hct are influenced by external factors, such as body posture, exercise or residence at altitude. In addition, "clean" athletes can have naturally high Hb and Hct values. … In addition, … the adoption of upper Hb and Hct limits may paradoxically generate more blood doping because, by ESA misuse, Hb and Hct can be manipulated with the aim of approaching the target value without exceeding it'); McLaren, Athlete Biological Passport: The Juridical Viewpoint, [2012] ISLR Issue 4, p.5, and ibid. at footnote 20 (‘The CAS jurisprudence demonstrates the test can have an unfair effect on competitors. If the excluded athlete’s qualifier or competition arises within two days of the test they will be unable to compete whereas others who compete on a later day will retain their competition rights’).

(128) Sharpe, Hopkins, Emslie, Howe, Trout, Kazlauskas, Ashenden, Gore, Parisotto, Hahn, Development of reference ranges for markers of altered erythropoiesis, Haematologica, 2002; 87:1248-1257, at 1255.

rekrunner wrote:

Looks like I was correct, and you seem to agree, that you would ignore half the facts.

I don't agree. First, I summarized the authors' result chapter, and then, because you trolled me, I proved by directly citing the whole chapter that my summary was correct.

Instead of you apologizing, you want me to also cite some other, vague statements, full of woulds and coulds and possibilities.

And then you are accusing me of ignoring half the facts? Oh man, please troll less obviously, or I can't respond anymore. Oh wait. We've been there too.

rekrunner wrote:

Altitude training makes blood more suspicious, yet is not cheating.

No. Altitude has different thresholds.

In other news, do you have to turn all doping threads into rekrunner against the rest of letsrun?

Ah, but you did agree. My point was there were facts in the paper you would never say. I gave examples. You told me I was correct, before telling me you were also correct. I did not say you were incorrect, but incomplete.

Going backed to the leak data, and the basis for what Seppelt showed, Ashenden/Parisotto did not always use the altitude thresholds, when looking for abnormal values, because they did not always know when to.

Ajee's doped-up meat wrote:

EX Sur wrote:

Excellent surmise.

Especially playing on the "Russians are cheaters" angle, that all good Westerners believe.

Russia's problems started when they stopped bribing the IAAF.

In the U.S. USATF and the IAAF did not say a single word about Salazar's obvious doping program. In Britain, Coe came right out and declared Radcliffe clean despite ridiculous inconsistencies in her story.

The entire purpose of the federation seems to be to collect bribes under the pretense of running a sport. Cycling seems to operate in the same manner.

Best thing that could have happened wrote:

The incentives to dope are high, the chances of getting caught and penalties when caught are low. Until this balance shifts, nothing will change.

A doping positive becomes another opportunity to extract bribes. So, the priorities get turned inside out.

1. Test athletes

2. Extort athlete. Maybe they are clean, maybe not. It doesn't really matter either way because the federation has total authority.

3. See step 1.

rekrunner wrote:

Ah, but you did agree. My point was there were facts in the paper you would never say. I gave examples. You told me I was correct, before telling me you were also correct. I did not say you were incorrect, but incomplete.

Well. You said:

rekrunner wrote:

he usually provides half of them on one side.

And then you came up with an "example", where I correctly summarized the conclusion of an article, and then cited that conclusion in full, and yet you still pretend I "ignored half the facts" because I didn't discuss all hypotheses of said article in the discussion (IF ... then .... "would"...29%). Oh well.

rekrunner wrote:

Going backed to the leak data

Oh good. Then you might realize that we talked about the ABP, so all your talk about people with genetically high Hct who'd suffer under a fixed upper limit is pointless, because the ABP is.... individualized. Surprise, surprise.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Russia's problems started when they stopped bribing the IAAF.

In the U.S. USATF and the IAAF did not say a single word about Salazar's obvious doping program. In Britain, Coe came right out and declared Radcliffe clean despite ridiculous inconsistencies in her story.

The entire purpose of the federation seems to be to collect bribes under the pretense of running a sport. Cycling seems to operate in the same manner.

In Kenya, there are so many that need bribes, the federation isn't always senior in line.

This Kiprop story is mad. ADAK now saying that Simon Kurugu is nothing to do with them, whilst AIU confirm that it was him who conducted the test - where did he come from? And why is Kiprop's text exchange with him dated 21/11/17 when his statement says it was 26/11/17?

casual obsever wrote:

Oh good. Then you might realize that we talked about the ABP, so all your talk about people with genetically high Hct who'd suffer under a fixed upper limit is pointless, because the ABP is.... individualized. Surprise, surprise.

This ⬆️ You mean rekrunner fails to understand that the ABP is completely "individualized?" That's ABP 101. It wouldn't matter if an athlete had a naturally high crit of say 51.0 - the ABP upper parameters would be adjusted accordingly as you point out. I'm surprised rekrunner failed to grasp this concept with the amount of time he spends researching the ABP. Just trolling maybe? ?

changed his mind yet? wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-athletics-doping-kenya-kiprop/kenyan-champion-kiprop-wants-jail-terms-for-dopers-idUSKCN0XK0FT

Well...he should start packing then. ?

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

changed his mind yet? wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-athletics-doping-kenya-kiprop/kenyan-champion-kiprop-wants-jail-terms-for-dopers-idUSKCN0XK0FT

Well...he should start packing then. ?

Yes he'll look good stripey pajamas.

Beagle boys.

Orange is the new black.

Well said Sir.

QFE