The emperor has no clothes: Jemima Sumgong has tested positive for EPO!!!

This always cracks me up, "I'm clean I tell you." Then prove it, "no, I can't do that, what about my privacy."

If these sprinters like Bolt are clean, then publish T/E ratios for us all to see.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I would guess there is a privacy element to it.

There may also be an element of, why should he bother?

This always cracks me up, "I'm clean I tell you." Then prove it, "no, I can't do that, what about my privacy."

If these sprinters like Bolt are clean, then publish T/E ratios for us all to see.

Canova seems very willing to tell people that he has evidence that supports his contention that EPO doesn't improve performance. He seems not at all willing for anybody else to actually see that evidence.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Canova seems very willing to tell people that he has evidence that supports his contention that EPO doesn't improve performance. He seems not at all willing for anybody else to actually see that evidence.

Then no one is going to take him seriously. If he has sound scientific evidence to support the claim that EPO doesn't improve performance then it's imperative for him to share that evidence with the scientific community. Otherwise, it's simply his own theory & opinion...period.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

He may or may not have these blood values. They may or may not support his point.

I have encouraged him many times to publish these blood values. Either in a raw form so that they can be analyzed by others or in a study in combination with scientists.

He has not responded to my suggestion. Perhaps he thinks the data is proprietary and gives him an edge. Perhaps there is a privacy element to it. I don't know why he does not publish his blood test results.

I do know that if you are claiming in public that you have scientific evidence of something, and refuse to provide the data, that other people should not accept on face value that you have the data and that they say what it is alleged that they say. That is not how science works.

All great points...sensible, logical thinking on your part.

And if he has hematological data to support his claim then it's incumbent for him to publish the data so other researchers can evaluate it. Otherwise, it becomes nothing more than his own opinion & theory on whatever data he's looking at. Opinions & theories can never be presented as facts.

The best way to respect athlete privacy, and yet make any doping determination based on fully released data, is to release the full data, collected in a standardized way, anonymously to independent bodies qualified to interpret the data in context, with other independent bodies controlling the integrity of the process.The public is not qualified to interpret what the data proves, or interpret "excuses". The public is also not unbaised.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

This always cracks me up, "I'm clean I tell you." Then prove it, "no, I can't do that, what about my privacy."

If these sprinters like Bolt are clean, then publish T/E ratios for us all to see.

That'd be fine. Why doesn't Canova do that?

rekrunner wrote:

The best way to respect athlete privacy, and yet make any doping determination based on fully released data, is to release the full data, collected in a standardized way, anonymously to independent bodies qualified to interpret the data in context, with other independent bodies controlling the integrity of the process.

The public is not qualified to interpret what the data proves, or interpret "excuses". The public is also not unbaised.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

This always cracks me up, "I'm clean I tell you." Then prove it, "no, I can't do that, what about my privacy."

If these sprinters like Bolt are clean, then publish T/E ratios for us all to see.

I don't know. But by not doing so, he has lost all credibility (although I doubt he realizes that himself).

I am looking forward to more positives in the future!!!

rekrunner wrote:

The public is not qualified to interpret what the data proves, or interpret "excuses". The public is also not unbaised.

And you think the journals are? Over half the stuff published in the scientific journals these days is JUNK...now that stinks!

It's interesting to me that you and others feel like he owes you an explanation to earn your trust, or that he needs it.I'm not him, but I can speculate:- He has explained in great detail what he believes and why he believes it, to a hostile audience- He has already posted a lot of blood data, lactate data, time data, training data, behind the scenes data, life in Kenya data, in this forum- He doesn't feel like he owes you any explanation on your terms- Publishing the data that shows the same thing he's already posted, will add no value, but at his personal cost- This kind of independent review you want doesn't get analyzed for free -- will you step up and offer to pay the costs? Will trollism, spencer, yyy, rjm, casual obsessor?- Maybe you will be true to your word, and attempt to look at raw data objectively, but I get a sense most "skeptics" here have made up their mind, and would interpret the data only looking for confirmation of their preconceived notions.The fact that blood values go down during the season as a result of intense exercise is something well known. What exactly do you think someone would find?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

That'd be fine. Why doesn't Canova do that?

rekrunner wrote:

The best way to respect athlete privacy, and yet make any doping determination based on fully released data, is to release the full data, collected in a standardized way, anonymously to independent bodies qualified to interpret the data in context, with other independent bodies controlling the integrity of the process.

The public is not qualified to interpret what the data proves, or interpret "excuses". The public is also not unbaised.

Once again, you make some very strange arguments. I guess anything is not too far for you.I do not believe Canova owes me anything. He is the one who chooses to come here and enter public debate over whether doping can work or not. I do not think he owes it to anybody to engage in this debate.He claims an exclusive position of privilege to know. He is surely right to do so, as he surely knows more about conditions on the ground and what the status of drug testing is in Kenya better than I do. I don't mind that he asserts this, although I do wish he would stop calling people morons or idiots.He is the one who has propounded a specific scientific theory for why doping does not work on the "best talents, born, living, and training at altitude." He is the one that claims that he has lots and lots of evidence to prove his theory.He has released very, very selective data. Without going back, I would guess he may have released 50 data points or so from blood work. But he says he tests his athletes every two weeks and so he must have thousands, or likely even tens of thousands of data points.Once he has chosen to engage in this debate and claim to have in his possession evidence, but then not allow other people to see that evidence, well, it really undermines his credibility.Maybe he is not concerned about his credibility or whether the data really backs up his theory or not. That seems very strange, though, being that he repeatedly comes on here to expound on his theory and seems very keen to convince people of it. I'm sure there are a lot of scientists that would be very, very happy to look over his data.Again, not that he owes me anything, but I don't personally think that Canova's credibility on these matters is particularly high. He used to come on here and tell us that the reason no Kenyan ever tested positive is because they never used any support at all ("also legal"). He repeatedly assured us of that and claimed a sort of sociological explanation where Kenyans only believed in the value of hard work. That explanation has not held up very well.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Once again, you make some very strange arguments. I guess anything is not too far for you.

Again, not that he owes me anything, but I don't personally think that Canova's credibility on these matters is particularly high. He used to come on here and tell us that the reason no Kenyan ever tested positive is because they never used any support at all ("also legal"). He repeatedly assured us of that and claimed a sort of sociological explanation where Kenyans only believed in the value of hard work. That explanation has not held up very well.

+1

Canova, and rek-troll, were also proven wrong with their nonsense claim that Jeptoo just started doping when she was caught. So much for them not having an agenda.

"hostile audience", rofl. Experienced and logical posters would be a more fitting description.

rekrunner wrote:

Will trollism, spencer, yyy, rjm, casual obsessor?

"casual obsessor", how ironic. I am not the one posting millions of repetitive lengthy nonsense posts about EPO not working and Paula maybe being clean and Saugy a man of honor (or honour in your case) and IAAF being trustworthy etc. etc.

Maybe you should step back and do a word count of your "contributions". Even as an obsessive troll, you might want to consider taking a break to get a life.

Recall, you asked me "why he doesn't do that". I don't know, but just put myself in his shoes, as if I were a knowledgeable insider, taking a lot of my personal spare time to share my valuable unique experience and insights, only to be met with hostility, largely by people who know next to nothing on the topic, but have decided that they know more.I didn't speculate what you believe, but what he might believe from his point of view.I think I saw recently that he does want to work with scientists to start conducting some research in a different direction.Maybe he's already doing what you want -- at least partly.Regarding socialigical views on external "support", times can change, what was true a decade ago can be completely different today. That doesn't undo the past.

Seems to be top level female marathoners getting busted

I still await evidence on the men's side .My own assumption is that the top East Africans can run 2-03/2-04 if Steve Jones and Lopes could run 2-07 30 years ago.How many can do it clean is another matter.

I believe all the top track stars were however on EPO.Geb ,Bekele ,Komen etc.

Barakus Obama wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Poor people are less moral? Those cyclists from rich countries doped because they're less desperate for riches?

Erhm, I wrote the opposite. Secondly, yes, poor people have more incentives to cheat. Doesn't mean rich people cheat too, but probably less. Less incentive. Not saying anything about culture or that some people are better than others, though its obvious that some nations are far worse than others. Italy and Spain seems to be far worse than Denmark for example.

Don't worry about what Wigand says, he's a complete MORAN:

rekrunner: "Clearly Mr. Canova has more experience and expertise than all of us on this board combined."

Yes, more experience at dietrologia!

He's hardly original.

Blind Man: "Getting rich or famous is not a primary goal of these athletes. Hoping for a life changing opportunity, to compete for their country, to travel and see another part of the world are what I know being around these athletes for the last 42 years."

I see that full-on retards still lurk here.

Yes, getting a life changing opportunity, getting to compete for their country, and getting to travel to and see another part of the world...by getting rich or famous.

In fact, to many, those are the very qualities that identify being rich or famous.

This place is amazing. And people like this guy VOTE!

The simplest explanation is that they dope, and it works.

Other explanations are byzantine and convoluted, exactly like the explanations offered by bodybuilders.

Both the bodybuilding and the European-coaching-African-distance-runners invent these giant structures of fantasy to take the place of a simple, obvious, and proven explanation. There's always some "secret" that they're not willing to reveal, because it's proprietary, or because there is some privacy concern, or because they want to stay a step ahead of their competition...and according to them the secret always involves some new and complicated training modality, location, monitoring, periodization, whatever.

And they go to great lengths to make convoluted, yet unconvincing, excuses for all of their partners-in-crime, even if on the track they are their competitors.

Dietrologia, the idea that the explanation that is visible, obvious, and proven (PED's) cannot be the real explanation, that there has to be "something behind" it, like a new super-secret and so-complicated-that-you-would-have-trouble-understanding-it training methodology.

Like all B.S., an ever-increasing web of lies and fantasy are required to maintain the increasingly complex and unstable edifice of "what lies behind".

The key, to make it successful, is to know your audience, and to play to their biases and weaknesses. The track community desperately wants to believe that their heroes are clean, and will entertain the b.s. It's a perfect setup.

Make no mistake, everybody in Italy does this kind of thing, about all sorts of issues. They have varying audience sizes, most often their small circle of idiot friends.

I have heard it described as the second biggest Italian pastime...second only to football.

Canova, the unmasking is complete.

Ooops. Must have been autocorrected.

rekrunner wrote:

... casual obsessor ...