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

Genius idea! wrote:

Team Doping Apologists

Rekrunner

Casual Observer

Canova

Pharmacist

I will not be on a team with rekrunner.

casual obsever wrote:

Genius idea! wrote:

Team Doping Apologists

Rekrunner

Casual Observer

Canova

Pharmacist

I will not be on a team with rekrunner.

You put Pharmacist on the wrong team. He's our anchor leg. He only pretends to dope. Casual observer will make a protest to CAS before the race starts. As he should.

Genius idea! wrote:

Letsrun should organize a 4x 400, LRC’s anti-dopers vs. doping apologists.

Team Anti-Dopers

Armstronglivs

A Duck

Subway Surfers

Matt London

Team Doping Apologists

Rekrunner

Casual Observer

Canova

Pharmacist

Who do you think will win?

The second team cannot win because we all know that doping is greatly over-estimated. But if they do win, one of them will fail a drug test so the team is DQed. So they lose, either way.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

Holy sh-t!

Congrats to Tadesse on getting his WR back?

Yeah! Because Tadesse is clean.

/sarc

Yeah, I believe he also doped his way to the 'lowest ever economy figures ever recorded' *

/sarc

*mlO2/kg/km for you

This is not a fair contest. Whatever team I’m on will win 100%.

Pharmacist wrote:

This is not a fair contest. Whatever team I’m on will win 100%.

T-levels?

Surely it is crucial to understanding how "I would still consider 12% a problem" to get ALL THE FACTS out there. What an amazing educational journey you've fabricated. So that means that "2011 IAAF study", oh sorry, almost did it again, the "2011 WADA funded Swiss Lab IAAF study on IAAF blood samples" (is that OK now?), is really Sottas' paper, and Saugy just graded it? I guess that explains why most references indicate "Sottas et al., 2011" Just so I got it right, you called it "more of a WADA study" despite "Saugy and his co-workers listed Swiss Laboratory for Doping Analyses" as their affliiation? And "less of an IAAF study" despite 3 authors listing their affiliation as the IAAF? None of the authors listed WADA as their affiliation. Please forgive me, I'm just trying to figure out how things work in this non-bizarro world. More simple corrections: - I guess you really meant WADA "accredited" lab rather than "WADA lab". - The Swiss Lab for Doping Analyses is one of the nine units of the CURML (University Centre of Legal Medicine, Lausanne) at the CHUV (Lausanne University Hospital) I found an excellent resource for understanding author lists, where Saugy would be "The last author: The head honcho. Hasn't even read the paper but, hey, he got the funding, and their famous name will get the paper accepted":http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=562

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

- Who is the main author? Sottas is listed first.

- Sottas and Saugy work for the University of Lausanne, not WADA -- why not call it the Lausanne study, like the WADA-commissioned survey study is called the Tuebingen study?

1) Traditionally the first author is the one who did most of the work, and the main (principal) author - normally the boss of the first is listed last, as in this case. (Less common is to sort by group, e.g. first all authors of affiliation 1, then all of affiliation 2, etc. As you can see, this is not the case here.)

2) I didn't call it Lausanne study, because Saugy and his co-workers listed Swiss Laboratory for Doping Analyses, Epalinges, Switzerland, as their affiliation, not the University of Lausanne.

Here, Saugy is best known as (previous) director of this WADA lab.

Now maybe you see "apologist" is just one of these overused clichés used as a mindless insult without real comprehension, similar to "racist". Maybe you have a theory why you are repeatedly called an apologist, or why at least one person thinks we are the same person (I guess like Dr. Jekyll and casual obsever). But then again are you sure he meant you? He didn't say "casual obsever" but "Casual Observer".

casual obsever wrote:

Genius idea! wrote:

Team Doping Apologists

Rekrunner

Casual Observer

Canova

Pharmacist

I will not be on a team with rekrunner.

I know you don't subscribe to my view, but help me understand your view. Correct me if I'm wrong: - You believe "incidence of doping is likely to be much higher than many believe" because it is a stark fact that we do *not know* which performances are clean. - Maybe the best athletes aren't doping, but the next best are. - Or alternatively the best athletes are doping, but are low (or maybe non or negative) responders (in line with "diminishing returns" model for elites) - Despite significant gains proven by research, like the emperor's clothes, it is difficult to see it because doped performances are only marginally better than clean performances When you look at the quantity of elite runners (not enormous), versus the quantity of amateur runners (enormous), how can you explain an "enormous" market driven by a "not enormous" quantity of elite runners, and not driven by the enormous quantity of non-elites trying to reach the next level?

Genius idea! wrote:

Letsrun should organize a 4x 400, LRC’s anti-dopers vs. doping apologists.

Team Anti-Dopers

Armstronglivs

A Duck

Subway Surfers

Matt London

Team Doping Apologists

Rekrunner

Casual Observer

Canova

Pharmacist

Who do you think will win?

Really? casual obsever (I think that's who you're talking about?) with rekrunner on Team Doping Apologists? How can that be when casual obsever spends most of his time having to correct rekrunner on his misguided and erroneous facts? Lol. Casual obsever is probably one of the most well-researched posters I've ever seen on this forum. Rekrunner can be pretentious & grandiose with his posts and shows very little respect for an opposing opinion. If you disagree with any of his positions on doping issues he tries to make a fool of you. And he's one of those posters who likes to point out grammatical errors on an informal discussion forum. Lol.

Yessssss I want to see a LR battle

Dumb Idea wrote:

Really? casual obsever (I think that's who you're talking about?) with rekrunner on Team Doping Apologists? How can that be when casual obsever spends most of his time having to correct rekrunner on his misguided and erroneous facts? Lol. Casual obsever is probably one of the most well-researched posters I've ever seen on this forum. Rekrunner can be pretentious & grandiose with his posts and shows very little respect for an opposing opinion. If you disagree with any of his positions on doping issues he tries to make a fool of you. And he's one of those posters who likes to point out grammatical errors on an informal discussion forum. Lol.

Because he claims that literally everybody dopes. When there is manifestly a bigger doping problem in some areas of the world than others, this is doping apologism.

Rekrunner claims that doping doesn't work, Casual Observer that everybody dopes. Both positions basically lead to the same conclusion - doping doesn't really matter. The two of them turn every thread related to doping (and even many that aren't) into an interminable discussion as to whether EPO works.

There's no doubt he's well researched, like rekrunner, suspiciously so. Nevertheless, he twists 'evidence', such as the various polls of athletes who admit doping. He's also the same person as 'Spade Detector', who viciously defends any accusations that the problem is worse in Kenya than elsewhere.

Dumb Idea wrote:

Genius idea! wrote:

Letsrun should organize a 4x 400, LRC’s anti-dopers vs. doping apologists.

Team Anti-Dopers

Armstronglivs

A Duck

Subway Surfers

Matt London

Team Doping Apologists

Rekrunner

Casual Observer

Canova

Pharmacist

Who do you think will win?

Really? casual obsever (I think that's who you're talking about?) with rekrunner on Team Doping Apologists? How can that be when casual obsever spends most of his time having to correct rekrunner on his misguided and erroneous facts? Lol. Casual obsever is probably one of the most well-researched posters I've ever seen on this forum. Rekrunner can be pretentious & grandiose with his posts and shows very little respect for an opposing opinion. If you disagree with any of his positions on doping issues he tries to make a fool of you. And he's one of those posters who likes to point out grammatical errors on an informal discussion forum. Lol.

Casual observer is on the wrong team. Let’s make it a 5x400 to get more people involved. Live streamed on letsrun.

Anti-Dopers Team:

Armstronglivs

casual observer

Coevett

M!ndweak/ “i got banned”

LoneStarXC

Doping Apologists Team:

Rekrunner

Canova

Aragon

Pharmacist

Coach J.S

Brojos, let’s make this happen!

What do you mean by "suspiciously so?"

i dont know but i think we will win because.....

rek says he is a late 40s hobby jogger (so i imagine 5'8 220lbs, man boobs and dad bod, heel striker and bad form) 1:50 at best

canova is old as balls, so i imagine he aint running anything, a slow shaky walk. 4 min or so

aragon....dont know much about him but the first two legs are really killing his chances...lets say 1:40

pharmacist...dont know who he is either but again canova walking a 4 min 400m isnt helping out. lets say 1:40

coach JS...prob their best leg, and well his superior coaching is second to none! 1:28

our team...

armstronglivs....seems to be someone who still runs a good mileage a week, i give him 1:12

casual...a humble hobby jogger i believe he once said, i give him 1:45

coevett....although he is old and way out of shape, you need to remember he has 1:44/3:30 lifetime PRs...and a ridiculous competitive spirit, he will run faster than rek no matter what, i give him 1:40

me....well im out of shape and just started back up jogging last week, i have gone from 10 min mile pace to 9:15 (on hilly terrain at 8000ft), but i feel like i could do a 1:30 right now...in a few weeks i think 1:10-12

lonestarxc.....seems to be a stern man who continues to crank out 80 miles a week, he will crush a 1:05

- the poster formally known as m!ndweak

Lol, I’m a female college runner, but around 1:05 is probably right. I’m a distance runner, but I had 60 second 400 speed at my best. I’ll probably be a little slower now because I’m in the middle of summer base building.

We’ll totally win!

LoneStarXC wrote:

Lol, I’m a female college runner, but around 1:05 is probably right. I’m a distance runner, but I had 60 second 400 speed at my best. I’ll probably be a little slower now because I’m in the middle of summer base building.

We’ll totally win!

From Texas...no doubt? ?

I'm not casual observer and I've never said that Kenya doesn't have a doping problem (I've said the opposite). Once again you've proven yourself incapable of refraining from lying. Your word is mud.

Sounds like a fair estimate but I will add this: I was good for low-50's in my younger days, but since on Letsrun I often read that no one ages anymore I'm still good for 52. If you want to believe that.