23. His listed birthday is March. The point is that he reached his best performances in 2016 as an age cheater and world junior champ, plateaued or even lost something, which is very much characteristic of Kenyan World Junior champs types, with a few exceptions like Faith Kipyegon, and then made up for it, especially at the longer distances, by blood doping and who knows what else? He wasn't the greatest talent. Hence, his rise faltered at "18." He stagnated for years after that because he was at his lifetime natural peak. When he finally improved episodically in 2019 and 2022 especially, that was doping taking over where nature was done.
23. His listed birthday is March. The point is that he reached his best performances in 2016 as an age cheater and world junior champ, plateaued or even lost something, which is very much characteristic of Kenyan World Junior champs types, with a few exceptions like Faith Kipyegon, and then made up for it, especially at the longer distances, by blood doping and who knows what else? He wasn't the greatest talent. Hence, his rise faltered at "18." He stagnated for years after that because he was at his lifetime natural peak. When he finally improved episodically in 2019 and 2022 especially, that was doping taking over where nature was done.
I don't get your point. 23 and 11 months is not 18. Again, his best performance was in 2022, not 2016. He probably doped as the case seems to show but why are you making things up?
I don't get your point. 23 and 11 months is not 18. Again, his best performance was in 2022, not 2016. He probably doped as the case seems to show but why are you making things up?
Why do you say "probably" and "seems"?
More accurate is: he doped as the case shows. Even better: he doped as shown by his six year ban.
Every single significant Kenyan athlete over the past 30 years, and probably also Bahrainian, Algerian, Turkish, Jamaican, and Ethiopian athletes, has been a user.
IMO
Anybody who believes these feats are doable cleanly has never themselves trained up against an honest older WR.
I don’t care what you think of my opinion. Drugs WORK, I have seen it.
I agree that drugs work (that seems obvious). And I don't dispute your first sentence - I don't really know for sure, but it wouldn't shock me if basically none of those great African distance runners/Jamaican sprinters were clean. But why restrict the accusation to just those countries? Or to look at it from another angle, how are all the athletes from the US, UK, Australia, Norway, Sweden, etc. ("the good guys?") also running much faster than the "honest older WRs"?
The way I see it, if indeed everyone is doping, then that applies to all the major track powers. Maybe in Western countries, it's just easier to get set up with the right people to help with the ins and outs of microdosing, timing of dosing, masking, etc.
The athletes are defended by knowledgeable counsel, so this is not about English ability.
Knowledgeable English speaking counsel cannot cure an inability to access "crucial data" or an inability to secure independent "experts". Kwemoi was indeed represented "pro bono" by Mr. David Hopkins, of Essex, London, so English language was not an issue in his specific case. This may not always be the case.
It was his English counsel who argued that:
"Crucial details of the ABP testing procedure and the Adaptive Model are not disclosed. ... this places the ABP beyond scrutiny." and
"The athlete gave evidence that he was unable to secure independent scientific evidence to present at the hearing. It was asserted that WADA-accredited labs and experts are precluded from acting on behalf of athletes and that consequently it is extremely difficult to secure any expert capable of supporting his case. It was further asserted that the Expert Panel was advocating on behalf of the AIU, therefore their opinion cannot be considered independent".
Not only is doping throughout Kenyan running, it is at every level.
The real scandal is that they didn't ban him in late 2016/early 2017 (but now retroactively DQ'd him since July 2016). He cheated several athletes out of medals and higher incomes and teams due to all the delays during those 7 years. That could have been easily avoided.
I don't get your point. 23 and 11 months is not 18. Again, his best performance was in 2022, not 2016. He probably doped as the case seems to show but why are you making things up?
Why do you say "probably" and "seems"?
More accurate is: he doped as the case shows. Even better: he doped as shown by his six year ban.
I say that because there is a margin for error. I am not defending him. I just chose my words because mistakes happen. Again, if he doped, it's good that he was caught and suspended.
Every single significant Kenyan athlete over the past 30 years, and probably also Bahrainian, Algerian, Turkish, Jamaican, and Ethiopian athletes, has been a user.
IMO
Anybody who believes these feats are doable cleanly has never themselves trained up against an honest older WR.
I don’t care what you think of my opinion. Drugs WORK, I have seen it.
Every single significant Kenyan athlete over the past 30 years, and probably also Bahrainian, Algerian, Turkish, Jamaican, and Ethiopian athletes, has been a user.
IMO
Anybody who believes these feats are doable cleanly has never themselves trained up against an honest older WR.
I don’t care what you think of my opinion. Drugs WORK, I have seen it.
Yes...this is going to be a good one to discus (rekrunner?). I just started reading the disciplinary tribunal hearing. There are a whopping 40 blood samples taken! I'm seeing a couple of very high OFF-scores (135!). It looks like Kwemoi's primary defense was altitude as the cause of the anomalies (who have thought. Lol)
They say altitude is a "mild confounder", with the effects visible in the first few days and weeks (e.g. 7-10 days). 2500m is higher, so will be a less mild confounder. Anything beyond these limits cannot be easily explained by altitude.
It may not have helped here, but points 49 (crucial details of ABP procedure and algorithm not public and cannot be scrutinized) and 54 (no scientific experts available to athletes), gives the AIU a big advantage over the athletes, especially those with poor English skills.
The late charge (after 7 years) also places an unusually high burden on the athlete to provide detailed explanations of events over a 7-year period related to 40 different samples.
As interesting as this ABP data is to you, there is not enough data though to show how his performance was impacted, above and beyond normal training at altitude.
It's stated that the magnitude of the changes on OFF-score from this level of altitude exposure range between "10 to 20 points" over baseline. As you mentioned anything beyond these limits can't be explained by altitude (Kwemoi had several OFF-scores significantly higher than the 10 to 20 points over his baseline).
The anti-doping experts noted a "clear OFF-phase" pattern (elevated OFF-scores driven by high HGB & low RET values), and "clear stimulation" (increased RET% & IRF).
As noted, most of the anomalies were at or around key competitions over the last several years.
I read points # 49 & #54 (you know Kwemoi can appeal to CAS). However, did you read #56 - "VIII The Merits" --- Is The ABP "Reliable Means" ? I think you'll find your answers here on the reliability & effectiveness of the ABP hematological module - which has been in play now going on 14 years!
Of course you're not going to believe his performance was impacted by blood doping (nothing new there. Lol). Others, including experts & coaches would obviously disagree with you.
You need to ask yourself a common sense question beyond your biases: If blood doping had no effect on his performance - why would a highly trained altitude native engage in blood doping at or near key competitions over the last several years of his career? 🤔
It's stated that the magnitude of the changes on OFF-score from this level of altitude exposure range between "10 to 20 points" over baseline. As you mentioned anything beyond these limits can't be explained by altitude (Kwemoi had several OFF-scores significantly higher than the 10 to 20 points over his baseline).
The anti-doping experts noted a "clear OFF-phase" pattern (elevated OFF-scores driven by high HGB & low RET values), and "clear stimulation" (increased RET% & IRF).
As noted, most of the anomalies were at or around key competitions over the last several years.
I read points # 49 & #54 (you know Kwemoi can appeal to CAS). However, did you read #56 - "VIII The Merits" --- Is The ABP "Reliable Means" ? I think you'll find your answers here on the reliability & effectiveness of the ABP hematological module - which has been in play now going on 14 years!
Of course you're not going to believe his performance was impacted by blood doping (nothing new there. Lol). Others, including experts & coaches would obviously disagree with you.
You need to ask yourself a common sense question beyond your biases: If blood doping had no effect on his performance - why would a highly trained altitude native engage in blood doping at or near key competitions over the last several years of his career? 🤔
Paragraphs 49 and 54 are not questions about reliability and effectiveness, but about the athlete having access to crucial data and relevant independent experts in order to prepare a complete defense. The athlete is burdened with rebutting presumptions of correct expert interpretation. The lawyer is complaining that his hands are tied because he keeps bumping into WADA-built walls. This is not the first time such criticisms have been raised. This can be generalized and is not limited to the ABP or this case about Kwemoi.
Appealing to the CAS will simply enforce the terms in the WADA Code and associated guidelines and standards. It will not resolve these issues when they were put into the Code by design, in a contract that binds all parties to these terms. WADA Labs are bound by WADA-accreditation terms not to communicate with the athletes and not to negatively criticize other WADA Labs.
Section VIII does not provide any answers to reliability and effectiveness. They merely say it has been used successfully before, and that it is convincing when experts (notably from one side) explain it.
I don't care who "disagrees" with me, but rather what their basis is for their own conclusions. My common sense tells me you need performance data to draw the corresponding conclusions about performance. It is unbiased to say that without data, it's not based on facts, but faith. It is speculative whether any athlete, coach, "expert", doctor, pharmacist, scientist, agent, husband, armchair pundit, or fan possess sufficient data to draw reliable conclusions about elite distance running performance in real racing. Also, the question I raise is subtly different than determining the existence of any non-zero effect: Is there any marginal benefit over and above altitude training, which is also "proven" to have an effect on performance.
He split his time in Japan and Kenya, but trained in the camp yes. I won’t speculate on how he conducted his alleged doping regimen because honestly I have no idea.
EPO doesn't work on world class Kenyans according to Canova , lol )
It's stated that the magnitude of the changes on OFF-score from this level of altitude exposure range between "10 to 20 points" over baseline. As you mentioned anything beyond these limits can't be explained by altitude (Kwemoi had several OFF-scores significantly higher than the 10 to 20 points over his baseline).
The anti-doping experts noted a "clear OFF-phase" pattern (elevated OFF-scores driven by high HGB & low RET values), and "clear stimulation" (increased RET% & IRF).
As noted, most of the anomalies were at or around key competitions over the last several years.
I read points # 49 & #54 (you know Kwemoi can appeal to CAS). However, did you read #56 - "VIII The Merits" --- Is The ABP "Reliable Means" ? I think you'll find your answers here on the reliability & effectiveness of the ABP hematological module - which has been in play now going on 14 years!
Of course you're not going to believe his performance was impacted by blood doping (nothing new there. Lol). Others, including experts & coaches would obviously disagree with you.
You need to ask yourself a common sense question beyond your biases: If blood doping had no effect on his performance - why would a highly trained altitude native engage in blood doping at or near key competitions over the last several years of his career? 🤔
Paragraphs 49 and 54 are not questions about reliability and effectiveness, but about the athlete having access to crucial data and relevant independent experts in order to prepare a complete defense. The athlete is burdened with rebutting presumptions of correct expert interpretation. The lawyer is complaining that his hands are tied because he keeps bumping into WADA-built walls. This is not the first time such criticisms have been raised. This can be generalized and is not limited to the ABP or this case about Kwemoi.
Appealing to the CAS will simply enforce the terms in the WADA Code and associated guidelines and standards. It will not resolve these issues when they were put into the Code by design, in a contract that binds all parties to these terms. WADA Labs are bound by WADA-accreditation terms not to communicate with the athletes and not to negatively criticize other WADA Labs.
Section VIII does not provide any answers to reliability and effectiveness. They merely say it has been used successfully before, and that it is convincing when experts (notably from one side) explain it.
I don't care who "disagrees" with me, but rather what their basis is for their own conclusions. My common sense tells me you need performance data to draw the corresponding conclusions about performance. It is unbiased to say that without data, it's not based on facts, but faith. It is speculative whether any athlete, coach, "expert", doctor, pharmacist, scientist, agent, husband, armchair pundit, or fan possess sufficient data to draw reliable conclusions about elite distance running performance in real racing. Also, the question I raise is subtly different than determining the existence of any non-zero effect: Is there any marginal benefit over and above altitude training, which is also "proven" to have an effect on performance.
I thought you were talking about the reliability & effectiveness of the ABP system as a proof of doping?
It's hard to keep track of your concerns, criticisms, skepticism, etc, of the anti-doping system & process. If I didn't know better, I'm beginning to think you might legal counsel that represents athletes in doping cases. 🤔 (we're all anonymous on this forum for the most part with many of us posting from all parts of the globe knowing nothing on who we really are).
Additionally, altitude training having a "proven" benefit on training would be because of the increase of RBCs as a result of hypoxia training. Wouldn't then an athlete at sea level who uses EPO or transfusions to boost RBCs have the same or similar effect as altitude training?
And unless researchers conduct a good designed RCT with elite distance athletes, the EPO & performance benefit question will never be settled. Therefore, you have your opinion, I have mine (which I basically echo the opinions of Schumacher & Malm), and others who debate this have their's.
Every single significant Kenyan athlete over the past 30 years, and probably also Bahrainian, Algerian, Turkish, Jamaican, and Ethiopian athletes, has been a user.
IMO
Anybody who believes these feats are doable cleanly has never themselves trained up against an honest older WR.
I don’t care what you think of my opinion. Drugs WORK, I have seen it.
What about American athletes?
Have consistantly been 10-15s back of East Africans for 30 years now over 5k..
it is hard to remember but things were pretty competitive before epo blow things wide open
I thought you were talking about the reliability & effectiveness of the ABP system as a proof of doping?
It's hard to keep track of your concerns, criticisms, skepticism, etc, of the anti-doping system & process. If I didn't know better, I'm beginning to think you might legal counsel that represents athletes in doping cases. 🤔 (we're all anonymous on this forum for the most part with many of us posting from all parts of the globe knowing nothing on who we really are).
Additionally, altitude training having a "proven" benefit on training would be because of the increase of RBCs as a result of hypoxia training. Wouldn't then an athlete at sea level who uses EPO or transfusions to boost RBCs have the same or similar effect as altitude training?
And unless researchers conduct a good designed RCT with elite distance athletes, the EPO & performance benefit question will never be settled. Therefore, you have your opinion, I have mine (which I basically echo the opinions of Schumacher & Malm), and others who debate this have their's.
What is so difficult to understand about a lack of "crucial details" and a lack of "scientific experts available to athletes" giving "the AIU a big advantage over the athletes"?
I'm not sure what you want to say about sea-level athletes. In scientific research, both EPO and altitude are similarly "proven" (in the short term). Do you have any good sea-level examples in mind?
I don't necessarily require a "good designed RCT with elite distance athletes". Data suggesting a correlation would be an improvement beyond the totality of what exists today. It's not ideal, as correlation is not causation, but we don't even have correlation yet.
I'm sure that Malm and Schumacher would agree with me that relevant conclusions require relevant data. Once again, what is more important than their opinions, is the bases for these opinions.