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

When did I say that?

Kenyans Doping Is Getting Ridiculous wrote:

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

rekrunner wrote:

When did I say that?

See, there you are back to playing your games. You could simply say that you did say it, and why, or that you didn't say it and what you really meant, but instead you counter the question with yet another question. Just to keep the thread distracted, and you in the center of it.

Like when you trolled Armstronglivs, when he said 1 out of 2 (instead of likely more than 43.6%) and IAAF-study (instead of Tuebingen/Harvard study, funded by WADA, supported and reviewed by the IAAF, for pages and days, instead of simply correcting him.

Or just now, when you "answered" my question with yet another question.

What do you really say, when you say something? When EPO/blood-dopers get caught, you normally say that they are slow, or not at the top (e.g., Rutto), or that it is not proven that they were doped when running fast (e.g., Kiprop).

If you can say none of the above, e.g. Rita in Boston, you say that she was rabbited by a competitor - after arguing for pages that maybe she didn't dope although she was DQ'ed based on the IAAF doping rule 40.8.

All of the above to obfuscate the fact that EPO is a performance enhancing drug - without really saying that EPO is not performance enhancing.

For the same reason, you continue to argue about the experts' conclusions, and to tarnish their reputations.

I did not bring that up -- anonymous poster "rekrunner analysis" brought my analysis up. I don't think 13:03 is slow, but I did choose to do an analysis on athletes with faster times, leaving athletes of Rutto's caliber unanalyzed. I haven't expressed what I "know" about Rutto's performance, but I did express a belief that he would be prosecuted if he deserved it.

Kenyans Doping Is Getting Ridiculous wrote:

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.

If someone asks how I could say something that I didn't say, honestly I don't think the biggest problem is my response. These problems need to fixed at the source, and there needs to be some accountability for getting it wrong in the first place. You are not much better, accusing me of things and getting it wrong. Regarding Tuebingen, I gave him a chance to correct what I showed was wrong (teach him to fish, rather than give him fish) and then I did correct him, and it still lasted for pages while he added more misinformation, or argued that Arabian weightlifting is relevant to the IAAF, and accused me of other things like always minimizing the doping problem. And just now, I answered your questions with answers. Regarding Jeptoo, my statement was about what "the IAAF" claimed, and stopped when I saw a more detailed document. What do I really say when I say something? EPO studies have limitations. Real world examples have limitations. There are legal ways to get more red blood cells. There are other factors besides doping that determine performance.

Prevarications, hair-splitting, evasiveness, responding to questions with questions, pedantic defences, statements that could mean anything, so mean nothing: rekrunner, you are a master of casuistry: a cloud of gas would have more meaning. No one works so hard to be misunderstood as you do. It isn't hard to guess why. As I said previously, you are the doping equivalent of a Holocaust denier. Propaganda disguised as a concern for truth.

Interesting that Tucker doesn't mention a "LOW reticulocyte percentage" with high hemoglobin can also indicate the OFF-phase of recent EPO/ESA use. Here's an excellent paper (Schumacher et al) that explains the OFF-phase in detail with an great illustration (chapter under "Passports of typical manipulation techniques"):

Which leads me to the question I asked earlier if there was any info that the Kenyans are engaging in blood transfusions? Would the Kenyans have the money and resources for this? Wouldn't the coaches have to orchestrate that?

If not, then I would think these Kenyan ABP cases might be suggestive of the OFF-phase detection of EPO/ESA use where they received good doping advice when to stop usage before their competition(s) so as not to test positive but tripped the ABP on the OFF-phase (High Hgb/Low RET%).

I have started reading rekrunner's responses in the manner of the Minister in this Mr Bean sketch.

Listen closely and tell me you don't see the similarity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh__g-ZZ6WA

Oh the irony. You use a lot of big words (one could say causistry), to hide that your posts, when they don't contain basic errors of fact, are vacuous (less than a cloud of gas). You are right -- anyone can guess: One reason so many people "misunderstand" me is they can only rebut a strawman. Apparently "effect is over-estimated at the top" is too complex to comprehend, so a more effective approach is to label me an apologist and a denier. You finally did choose the word "exaggerated", but not after wrongly accusing me several times of trying to prove doping doesn't work, so something tells me part of you knew better, yet you still wrote the wrong thing because it was easier to argue against. As you can see "Kenyans Doping Is Getting Ridiculous" accused me of not one, but two things I did not do, and somehow I'm the villain -- I'm the one accused of playing games -- and no one will hold him accountable. It's not one isolated example. Finally your holocaust comparisons are way out of line. How old are you -- 90 with a 9 year old mentality?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Prevarications, hair-splitting, evasiveness, responding to questions with questions, pedantic defences, statements that could mean anything, so mean nothing: rekrunner, you are a master of casuistry: a cloud of gas would have more meaning. No one works so hard to be misunderstood as you do. It isn't hard to guess why. As I said previously, you are the doping equivalent of a Holocaust denier. Propaganda disguised as a concern for truth.

rekrunner wrote:

You are not much better, accusing me of things and getting it wrong.

I hope not.

rekrunner wrote:

Regarding Jeptoo, my statement was about what "the IAAF" claimed, and stopped when I saw a more detailed document.

Yes, and I said that "IAAF claimed that she was already doping for Boston" with reference to her being DQ'd because of 40.8.

You then responded:

rekrunner wrote:

I'm aware that the IAAF DQ'd the Boston result pursuant to Rule 40.8.

I'd be careful if someone's words of mouth said the "IAAF claimed that she was already doping for Boston".

From which I concluded that you challenged my conclusion, although Rule 40.8 is exclusively about doping. Was that wrong?

If you did not challenge my conclusion that she was doped in Boston, why did you continue to argue for so long despite your knowledge of the facts, including that she was banned pursuant to the doping rule 40.8? And what did you really mean with "I'd be careful..."?

rekrunner wrote:

Finally your holocaust comparisons are way out of line.

Agreed!

Clearly stung. The truth hurts. Your latching on to my use of the word "exaggerated" is an example of your kind of twisting of the argument. I don't say that the performance enhancing effect of doping is "exaggerated" - I don't believe it is; it is the minimal position that can be attributed to someone who almost never says what he means, but contantly alludes to a position that negates the performance enhancing effects of doping. That is shown by your persistently claiming that the problem of doping is not doping itself but the "belief" that it is necessary in order to succeed., Everything thing you argue, including your endless recitation of statistics, is intended to reinforce that position. That is of course denying that doping really works but you can never come out and directly say that, because that would reveal you as the denier that you are. Definitely a student of David Irving.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Finally your holocaust comparisons are way out of line.

Agreed!

You both miss the point. Rekrunner is not accused of defending or denying the holocaust but of showing the same kind of intellectual gymnastics of those who do. Every kind of fact and argument is used to say one thing while effectively maintaining the opposite, which is what a certain brand of historian and scholar is well known for. Rekrunner claims he is against doping but by endlessly seeking to rebut fact or argument that indicates the performance enhancing capacity of doping he effectively denies it is a problem.

That whole discussion was stupid, and I admitted then I was wrong and stopped arguing it thereafter. You said "I am waiting for your apology." and I said it immediately "Yeah sorry. The CAS report I saw ..." It hinged on what I thought the "IAAF claimed" in the ruling, or hadn't claimed, not on "Jeptoo was clean/doped in Boston". This was my fault because I had only read a short press release, which did not specify the evidence for the ban (I said then "the CAS ruling did not reveal anything about the circumstances of the 17th of April."), just the announcement and the rule. "Dopeology 101" produced a lengthier document with the details I thought were missing. I said "sorry" to him too. Before you ask what else could it be, it could have been other dated evidence like doctor's visits, or pharmacy receipts. The rationale for going back and annulling previous results is not something they always explain. Part of why I continued was you quoted something that did not look like "my copy" of rule 40.8, so that wasn't making any sense to me.

I did not make that twist. You said about me "the one thing you constantly iterate is that the performance enhancing nature of doping is exaggerated" (which is true) while earlier you said I was arguing "then it doesn't work" (which is not true). Doping is a problem in and of itself, whether you succeed, partly succeed, or fail, to enhance performance, or even slow down, for many other reasons, including attempted performance enhancement. It is made bigger because of the exaggerated benefits skewing "risk/reward" analyses.

Why would you consider doping a problem if it doesn't materially affect performance? Surely, what matters is that it gives unfair advantage. No advantage presents no problem. No one really loses. Abuse of health may matter to doctors but not to your fellow competitors or the fans. And, frankly, I can't see competitors taking risks with their health without the offered advantage of greater success. Furthermore, if you think the advatanges of doping are over-estimated then that diminishes the importance of the problem. It is its ability to change outcomes and affect results that matters, and why we call it cheating.

I completely got the point, but not only is it classless and devaluing a serious issue, it is also wrong. Since you seemed to be so obsessed with my viewpoint, which is also based on the same "knowledge" but with different "beliefs": - I do not deny "use", and think it is alarmingly high. How high is another heated topic, but all estimates, even 12%, are too high. - I do not deny benefit. Determining how much benefit, when, for whom, is complex, and attempts to make it simple and clear also make it wrong. It is not me "obfuscating" or being unclear -- this specific question and answer is complex. - I say "belief" when "knowledge" is incomplete or insufficient to make certain decisions or conclusions. What we "know" about performance from narrow studies in labs, some "believe" we can project onto top athletes in real world conditions. - I don't completely deny these "faithful projections", but I "believe" we need to apply a model of "diminishing returns" when talking about magnitude of benefits for elite performances. I "believe" it is also indicative to look at real world results, also outside of Africa, to see how well theoretical predictions match the historical reality. - The fact that doping is a widespread problem does not give you the right to apply a lower standard of argument. - In your case, you would stand a better chance of maintaining credibility if you didn't keep making demonstrably false claims, and generally added more "knowledge" to your posts.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You both miss the point. Rekrunner is not accused of defending or denying the holocaust but of showing the same kind of intellectual gymnastics of those who do. Every kind of fact and argument is used to say one thing while effectively maintaining the opposite, which is what a certain brand of historian and scholar is well known for. Rekrunner claims he is against doping but by endlessly seeking to rebut fact or argument that indicates the performance enhancing capacity of doping he effectively denies it is a problem.

rekrunner wrote:

- I do not deny "use", and think it is alarmingly high. How high is another heated topic, but all estimates, even 12%, are too high.

That's your problem right here. In all likelihood, the real number is close to the average of all estimates.

But you, as an outsider, have the hybris to declare your absurd estimate - though lower than all others - to be the best. And less than 12% drug cheats only? Wow, that is just plain ridiculously low. I'd be really pleasantly surprised if it's less than 50%.

Same with the experts' estimates about the benefits from doping such as up to 3%, up to 30 s over 5000, up to 1 min over 10000 m. One can argue which expert is closest to the truth, but you as a hobby-jogging statistician pretend to know better than those experts.

Again, sometimes you are just trolling too hard.

As previously explained, for a combination of performance, health, and spirit of the sport reasons.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Why would you consider doping a problem if it doesn't materially affect performance? Surely, what matters is that it gives unfair advantage. No advantage presents no problem. No one really loses. Abuse of health may matter to doctors but not to your fellow competitors or the fans. And, frankly, I can't see competitors taking risks with their health without the offered advantage of greater success. Furthermore, if you think the advatanges of doping are over-estimated then that diminishes the importance of the problem. It is its ability to change outcomes and affect results that matters, and why we call it cheating.

Perhaps you misunderstood -- "too high" here means "alarmingly high", as expressed in the sentence that precedes it. 12% was not meant to be the "real" estimate, or "best" estimate, but an indication that I would consider the lowest expert estimate I can find, 12%, a problem. While you would find less than 50% pleasant, I would find 12% alarmingly high. 12% comes from a peer reviewed journal by experts, so I know you consider the value itself beyond challenge. Regarding experts' estimates, to the extent they are based on 9:00 runners (3K), 16:00 runners (5K), or 33:00 runners (10K), I think we need a good model to project these findings onto elite performances, a model that is not provided by experts. I have my own ideas, but do not pretend it is "knowledge". Speaking of games, labelling me with "troll" is one of your games.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

- I do not deny "use", and think it is alarmingly high. How high is another heated topic, but all estimates, even 12%, are too high.

That's your problem right here. In all likelihood, the real number is close to the average of all estimates.

But you, as an outsider, have the hybris to declare your absurd estimate - though lower than all others - to be the best. And less than 12% drug cheats only? Wow, that is just plain ridiculously low. I'd be really pleasantly surprised if it's less than 50%.

Same with the experts' estimates about the benefits from doping such as up to 3%, up to 30 s over 5000, up to 1 min over 10000 m. One can argue which expert is closest to the truth, but you as a hobby-jogging statistician pretend to know better than those experts.

Again, sometimes you are just trolling too hard.