It sounds like this is hitting Iten much harder than with Sumgong and Jeptoo.
It sounds like this is hitting Iten much harder than with Sumgong and Jeptoo.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sport-doping-kiprop-kenya/kiprops-doping-failure-hits-kenyas-cradle-of-athletics-idUSKBN1I52JJ?rpc=401&QFEr wrote:
It sounds like this is hitting Iten much harder than with Sumgong and Jeptoo.
;
Ajee's doped-up meat wrote:
EX Sur wrote:
Excellent surmise.
Especially playing on the "Russians are cheaters" angle, that all good Westerners believe.
Very good. White Westerners are so naive. That's why they're so easily brainwashed. They fall all over each other to show tolerance for people who hate them and take advantage of them, yet are ready to tear apart their own because their masters, the sneak rulers, have taught them to do so.
casual obsever wrote:
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.
That's pretty accurate. You said one fact and ignored another fact. I usually say "half" as an exagerrated rough estimate, but here it is exact. I didn't criticize you just here for overlooking one fact, but pointed out, that generally, on all topics, this is your pattern.
44% is what the survey respondents said, and not how the authors interpreted the raw data, and not what they said they found. 44% was not the "conclusion of the article", and 29% was not a hypothesis, but a part of the same study that was important enough to generate significant discussion, and its own table. The study opens up, in the first paragraph, saying 29%, not 44%: "At ... WCA ..., we found that the prevalence … was at least 29%". Why would they do that if 44% was more accurate?
The main purpose of the study is to assess if such survey approaches can be accurate. Part of their discussion is a sensitivity analysis showing that some effects can be small, up to 2%, while "hasty responses", generates a 15% point difference, compared to "thoughtful responses", in both WCA and PAG. This effect is also seen in other similar studies. You highlight all these up to 2% scenarios when talking about under-estimates, but always ignore the most significant 15% effect increasing the estimate.
My point is that you would never say that, and with each post, now after four tries, you confirm that point.
casual obsever wrote:
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.
I realize in the past in other threads we talked about the ABP based on individualized thresholds, but here and now I was talking about your claim that "Seppelt showed ... more likely to cheat...". What he "showed" was not based on the ABP with individual thresholds, but based on population thresholds, often with pre-ABP (unreliable) data. The same arguments are on point.
Both of these go to the same point -- you are an unreliable source of accurate information because you filter too much, and because you often equate things that are significantly different.
It was a nice strawman attempt, but here I was talking about an analysis (see "casual obsever's" claim about what "Seppelt showed") that was based on population thresholds. Part of the uncertainty of that analysis was that individual thresholds were not used, unlike the ABP. Another part was that much of the data was pre-ABP, known to be unsuitable for such an analysis. Another part was that sea-level population thresholds were used in some cases, after training at altitude.
Voice of Reason wrote:
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? ?
rekrunner wrote:
It was a nice strawman attempt, but here I was talking about an analysis (see "casual obsever's" claim about what "Seppelt showed") that was based on population thresholds. Part of the uncertainty of that analysis was that individual thresholds were not used, unlike the ABP. Another part was that much of the data was pre-ABP, known to be unsuitable for such an analysis. Another part was that sea-level population thresholds were used in some cases, after training at altitude.
What's your obsession with this altitude thing anyway? Altitude training stimulates erythropoiesis and increases Hct...big deal & no surprises there. And the increase in Hct drops precipitously upon returning to sea-level anyway, so the gains are lost pretty quickly. The ABP software is adjusted for any fluctuations seen on a passport from altitude training...again, nothing new there.
OTOH, dopers will use altitude training as a masking agent (who would have thought. Lol). From Mørkeberg's excellent paper on blood manipulation & challenges from an anti-doping perspective:
"Altitude exposure increases the endogenous EPO production and therefore diminishes the ratio between exogenous and endogenous EPO during rHuEPO administration, and thus the sensitivity of the direct EPO test."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24319242Also, pay attention to what Thomas Frei pulled off for a couple of years with micro-dosing EPO and beating the tests by hydrating at injection time. He said he slipped up and forgot to hydrate leaving himself glowing when an early morning out of the gate 6:00 am test took place. This might have been the situation with Kiprop - slip ups are usually how dopers get caught every now & then...imagine that. ?
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/3948/Thomas-Frei-used-micro-doses-and-water-to-avoid-EPO-detection.aspxPassport Era Doping wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It was a nice strawman attempt, but here I was talking about an analysis (see "casual obsever's" claim about what "Seppelt showed") that was based on population thresholds. Part of the uncertainty of that analysis was that individual thresholds were not used, unlike the ABP. Another part was that much of the data was pre-ABP, known to be unsuitable for such an analysis. Another part was that sea-level population thresholds were used in some cases, after training at altitude.
What's your obsession with this altitude thing anyway? Altitude training stimulates erythropoiesis and increases Hct...big deal & no surprises there. And the increase in Hct drops precipitously upon returning to sea-level anyway, so the gains are lost pretty quickly. The ABP software is adjusted for any fluctuations seen on a passport from altitude training...again, nothing new there.
OTOH, dopers will use altitude training as a masking agent (who would have thought. Lol). From Mørkeberg's excellent paper on blood manipulation & challenges from an anti-doping perspective:
"Altitude exposure increases the endogenous EPO production and therefore diminishes the ratio between exogenous and endogenous EPO during rHuEPO administration, and thus the sensitivity of the direct EPO test."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24319242Also, pay attention to what Thomas Frei pulled off for a couple of years with micro-dosing EPO and beating the tests by hydrating at injection time. He said he slipped up and forgot to hydrate leaving himself glowing when an early morning out of the gate 6:00 am test took place. This might have been the situation with Kiprop - slip ups are usually how dopers get caught every now & then...imagine that. ?
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/3948/Thomas-Frei-used-micro-doses-and-water-to-avoid-EPO-detection.aspx
I don't know who you are, obviously; but you certainly know a thing or two about doping. Excellent points made, and even better link.
Passport Era Doping wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It was a nice strawman attempt, but here I was talking about an analysis (see "casual obsever's" claim about what "Seppelt showed") that was based on population thresholds. Part of the uncertainty of that analysis was that individual thresholds were not used, unlike the ABP. Another part was that much of the data was pre-ABP, known to be unsuitable for such an analysis. Another part was that sea-level population thresholds were used in some cases, after training at altitude.
What's your obsession with this altitude thing anyway? Altitude training stimulates erythropoiesis and increases Hct...big deal & no surprises there. And the increase in Hct drops precipitously upon returning to sea-level anyway, so the gains are lost pretty quickly. The ABP software is adjusted for any fluctuations seen on a passport from altitude training...again, nothing new there.
OTOH, dopers will use altitude training as a masking agent (who would have thought. Lol). From Mørkeberg's excellent paper on blood manipulation & challenges from an anti-doping perspective:
"Altitude exposure increases the endogenous EPO production and therefore diminishes the ratio between exogenous and endogenous EPO during rHuEPO administration, and thus the sensitivity of the direct EPO test."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24319242Also, pay attention to what Thomas Frei pulled off for a couple of years with micro-dosing EPO and beating the tests by hydrating at injection time. He said he slipped up and forgot to hydrate leaving himself glowing when an early morning out of the gate 6:00 am test took place. This might have been the situation with Kiprop - slip ups are usually how dopers get caught every now & then...imagine that. ?
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/3948/Thomas-Frei-used-micro-doses-and-water-to-avoid-EPO-detection.aspx
One of these days a runner will have the balls to own up to their doping like this. What a bunch of slimy eels with their dumb excuses.
It's all very interesting, but hardly relevant to what "Seppelt showed". For one, Seppelt didn't use the ABP software.
Passport Era Doping wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It was a nice strawman attempt, but here I was talking about an analysis (see "casual obsever's" claim about what "Seppelt showed") that was based on population thresholds. Part of the uncertainty of that analysis was that individual thresholds were not used, unlike the ABP. Another part was that much of the data was pre-ABP, known to be unsuitable for such an analysis. Another part was that sea-level population thresholds were used in some cases, after training at altitude.
What's your obsession with this altitude thing anyway? Altitude training stimulates erythropoiesis and increases Hct...big deal & no surprises there. And the increase in Hct drops precipitously upon returning to sea-level anyway, so the gains are lost pretty quickly. The ABP software is adjusted for any fluctuations seen on a passport from altitude training...again, nothing new there.
OTOH, dopers will use altitude training as a masking agent (who would have thought. Lol). From Mørkeberg's excellent paper on blood manipulation & challenges from an anti-doping perspective:
"Altitude exposure increases the endogenous EPO production and therefore diminishes the ratio between exogenous and endogenous EPO during rHuEPO administration, and thus the sensitivity of the direct EPO test."
Also, pay attention to what Thomas Frei pulled off for a couple of years with micro-dosing EPO and beating the tests by hydrating at injection time. He said he slipped up and forgot to hydrate leaving himself glowing when an early morning out of the gate 6:00 am test took place. This might have been the situation with Kiprop - slip ups are usually how dopers get caught every now & then...imagine that. ?
rekrunner wrote:
It's all very interesting, but hardly relevant to what "Seppelt showed". For one, Seppelt didn't use the ABP software.
Passport Era Doping wrote:
What's your obsession with this altitude thing anyway? Altitude training stimulates erythropoiesis and increases Hct...big deal & no surprises there. And the increase in Hct drops precipitously upon returning to sea-level anyway, so the gains are lost pretty quickly. The ABP software is adjusted for any fluctuations seen on a passport from altitude training...again, nothing new there.
OTOH, dopers will use altitude training as a masking agent (who would have thought. Lol). From Mørkeberg's excellent paper on blood manipulation & challenges from an anti-doping perspective:
"Altitude exposure increases the endogenous EPO production and therefore diminishes the ratio between exogenous and endogenous EPO during rHuEPO administration, and thus the sensitivity of the direct EPO test."
Also, pay attention to what Thomas Frei pulled off for a couple of years with micro-dosing EPO and beating the tests by hydrating at injection time. He said he slipped up and forgot to hydrate leaving himself glowing when an early morning out of the gate 6:00 am test took place. This might have been the situation with Kiprop - slip ups are usually how dopers get caught every now & then...imagine that. ?
Hey Brojo's can we please have some violin concertos when Rekrunner posts?
Deanouk wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
That would be a real tragedy, if the irregularly prematurely leaked result was really the result of local Kenyan corruption and extortion and a tampered sample. If so, there is no way to undo the permanent damage to his reputation.
Oh please! Have you read his full statement (link on home page)?
For a start, why would a policeman (with a history of some strange and violent behaviour), who would have been privy to loads of corruption over the years in Kenya, agree to make a payment (for the first time!?) to known doping control officers, if he didn't feel he had something to hide? It stretches credulity beyond belief.
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. If this was not a usual occurrence (and I would suggest that it has obviously happened before to Kiprop), and it did not sit well with him, as a morally upstanding, anti doping, God fearing innocent, then why the hell did he not alert the IAAF immediately and refuse to have them go to his house the next day? Seems strange that he only has a problem with this situation and wants to bring it to everyone's attention, AFTER he has been caught doping.
No one at Kiprop's level would go into their bedroom, leaving a urine sample open in the other room (with said doping control officers), to look for cash to make a payment! LOL. And then wire it using a mobile phone app!?
All this under the guise of a naive, God fearing innocent who has been let down by people he trusted.
I think it's the worst, most unconvincing attempt to plead innocence from any one caught doping.
Yes. It would be incredibly fun to cross-examine him.
Kiprop cops to the positive test:
Interesting
https://mobile.twitter.com/AngryAsbel/status/992472289429114882
https://mobile.twitter.com/AngryAsbel/status/992137883103514624
https://mobile.twitter.com/AngryAsbel/status/766481565060833280
(My personal favorite)
https://mobile.twitter.com/AngryAsbel/status/766463113491279872
https://mobile.twitter.com/AngryAsbel/status/760287385263476736
https://mobile.twitter.com/AngryAsbel/status/531999002162913280
I'm beginning to suspect this isn't the real Asbel Kiprop.