Rhonex Kipruto suspended

rekrunner wrote:

Passport Doping wrote:

Here's Moroccan El Mahjous Dazza's case: (NR holder - marathon/2:05.26)

Link:www.insidethegames.biz/articles/109690...

In reading the hearing: Dazza's very first blood draw for his ABP was on May 4 2019 on the eve of the Prague marathon where he won in a time of 2:05.58 beating several Kenyans & Ethiopians (I know - these are probably recreational club-runners that come a dime a dozen. Lol).

His sample was flagged for hematological anomalies at 99.9% specificity (less than 1 in 1000 chance of undoped) for high Hgb (17.4), low RET% (0.32), with a corresponding OFF-score of 140.

His defense team had some contentions including altitude training & a down period of training for a few weeks in April due to injury.

So, I would take it your position wouldn't change that doping had absoluteky no effect on Dazza's winning performance at Prague?

So, in summary we have three cases presented here with top elites resulting in hematological anomalies bans: Kiptum sets the HR WR, Wanjiru finishes 3rd behind Bashir & Farah at the London Half & Dazza who smokes the Prague Marathon running his 2nd fastest time - and all of them just happen have high & exceeding high blood values resulting in 99.99% & 99.9% specificity levels.

Just coincidence? Lol

I did not say "doping had absoluteky no effect". Again, my position is that I cannot draw any conclusions with so many unknowns. If you want to know what effect it had on Dazza, you have to measure what he could have done without doping. That measurement is missing.

Given the popular belief in the power of EPO and blood doping, it is unsurprising that you are able to find three examples of athletes with high blood values.

I'll just note, in response to my point that EPO didn't make non-Africans all that much faster, over a period spanning 28 years before supershoes, than their pre-EPO predecessors, you gave me the examples of a low performing non-African, two East Africans and one North African. Non-African athletes represent 85% of the world.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I agree with your first statement. The rest is you preaching your gospel to reinforce your own beliefs. As I just told Coevett, repetition does not make it more persuasive.

"Stupid" and "dumber" are your personal judgements based on limited and inconclusive and biased information.

Kenyans aren't the ones here trying to tell me that someone's "belief" in doping was right or that doping helped their performance. It is posters like you, "inferring" their experience and attempting to palm that off as "knowledge".

You claim that it is only a "belief" that doping enhances performance - especially amongst altitude-trained elites. If that is so there are thousands of ignorant athletes who believe what isn't true. From the numbers caught Kenyans have shown they are amongst the biggest believers in doping. If your claim is correct it follows then that Kenyans are amongst the dumbest in the sport for believing what isn't true. That is the logical inference of your claim. But it clearly isn't one that you have thought through or wish to acknowledge.

woofy wrote:

So you're saying that we can only draw conclusions on an individual athlete by measuring what they could have done without doping? Give me strength. You don't have to test literally every single competing athlete in the world to be able to draw conclusions about each individually. That's just asinine quite frankly. For example, we know that steroids have a pretty strong effect. We don't have to know everyone's before and after values to know that. We know that they artificially increase certain values and provide an advantage. You do not need to measure what someone could have done e.g. without steroids to establish that. You also seem to be misunderstanding certain aspects of the bio passport. There is a difference between fluctuations caused by e.g. altitude, dehydration and outrageous variations that are so unnatural or so indicative and correlated with PED use (or ceasing PED use actually).

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You can always find a study that will go against the consensus (like Covid denial), and the consensus is that doping enhances performance. If it were not so then the practice would have long been discontinued. Athletes are not idiots. But some "researchers" apparently are.

I guess I have to hold your hand here. These meta-studies are critiques of the overall quality of the design of doping performance studies over the past few decades, and the consequent quality of any conclusions.

They don't argue "no effect", but that the doping effect has been over-estimated, and is not well supported scientifically by the very best studies for a number of reasons. As we just saw, even "leading researchers" agree that most are not "of very high quality" -- failing to live up to basic best practices like double-blinding, or including control groups.

The conclusion is that we need better quality studies to remove some of the hype.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It "doesn't look relevant" that microdosing improved the performances of trained athletes? Yet if it didn't improve their performances I would expect you to embrace its "relevance". So you know for a fact that microdosing wouldn't have the same or similar effect on trained elites? That's a fine piece of completely unsupported guesswork from one who claims to base his theorizing on "real world experiences". It doesn't meet your persuasions so you simply dismiss it. You are so FOS.

You are twisting yourself in knots, pretending this represents the "real world". Extrapolation is a fallacy, and studies like this often caution against interpreting their results in real world contexts.

Recall the study took 24 men (VO2max 55) and 24 women (VO2max 46). What do they mean by performance? I see Hgb, Mean power output, and peak aerobic power. That is not the performance I'm interested in. What do they mean by "well trained"? Was this study on sea-level non-elite non-Africans or on East Africans already adapted to low-oxygen?

In the context of elite running performance, this study, like most studies, measured the wrong things on the wrong people, over a short period of 4 weeks. This doesn't seem particularly relevant back to the real world of elite distance running.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You are twisting yourself in knots, pretending this represents the "real world". Extrapolation is a fallacy, and studies like this often caution against interpreting their results in real world contexts.

Recall the study took 24 men (VO2max 55) and 24 women (VO2max 46). What do they mean by performance? I see Hgb, Mean power output, and peak aerobic power. That is not the performance I'm interested in. What do they mean by "well trained"? Was this study on sea-level non-elite non-Africans or on East Africans already adapted to low-oxygen?

In the context of elite running performance, this study, like most studies, measured the wrong things on the wrong people, over a short period of 4 weeks. This doesn't seem particularly relevant back to the real world of elite distance running.

What do you know about the "real world of elite distance-running" when you have never been an elite distance runner? You are a poseur behind a keyboard.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I guess I have to hold your hand here. These meta-studies are critiques of the overall quality of the design of doping performance studies over the past few decades, and the consequent quality of any conclusions.

They don't argue "no effect", but that the doping effect has been over-estimated, and is not well supported scientifically by the very best studies for a number of reasons. As we just saw, even "leading researchers" agree that most are not "of very high quality" -- failing to live up to basic best practices like double-blinding, or including control groups.

The conclusion is that we need better quality studies to remove some of the hype.

Those "meta-studies" that you prefer to refer to suffer from the same problem that you have, which is that no top athletes have participated in a doping study. They are estimates based on very limited data. In essence, they are little more than speculation. Most dopers are never caught and they don't obligingly offer their services to boffins at universities. The studies do little more than reflect that there is very little reliable data on the effects of doping on performance, and essentially only caution against making definitive statements about that. Meanwhile, countless athletes continue to dope. They would not do so in the numbers they do and in every sport if there was nothing or little to gain from doping.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Those "meta-studies" that you prefer to refer to suffer from the same problem that you have, which is that no top athletes have participated in a doping study. They are estimates based on very limited data. In essence, they are little more than speculation. Most dopers are never caught and they don't obligingly offer their services to boffins at universities. The studies do little more than reflect that there is very little reliable data on the effects of doping on performance, and essentially only caution against making definitive statements about that. Meanwhile, countless athletes continue to dope. They would not do so in the numbers they do and in every sport if there was nothing or little to gain from doping.

It looks like you haven't understood. When one of the conclusions is that the studies were conducted on the wrong populations, then "no top athletes participated" is not a problem for the study, but just a restatement of one of the conclusions.

Heuberger's meta-study was a qualitative critique of a review of the existing literature, based on assessments of the methods and designs. Despite your attempts to downplay it, and your continued reliance on "athletes continue to dope" and personal belief that "they would not do so in the numbers they do and in every sport if there was nothing or little to gain", the conclusion of the literature review is that there is no scientific basis for elite athletes doping.

In other words, athletes "believe" it will work.

The quantitative study was another literature review, filtering out the lower quality studies and mathematically assessing any effect that was found. There conclusion giving weight to the higher quality studies, was that the effect of EPO on amateurs has been over-estimated.

Over-estimating effect in peer-reviewed studes serves to make beliefs among athletes, coaches, etc., stronger.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Do you even read what you say or does it just blurt out of your mouth into the page? You say that no top athletes is "not a problem" for the study but is one of its "conclusions". Your stupidity truly exceeds itself. The absence of data in top athletes isn't a "conclusion", it is a fundamental defect in any study that presumes to come to a definitive view on doping performance.

Then, on the basis of a study that has made no study of any top athletes you say there is "no scientific basis for elite athletes doping". So "no scientific basis" pronounced on that for which there is no data. That isn't science; it is mere nonsense. The total absence of that data to the researchers nonetheless doesn't seem to deter top athletes, who continue to dope, fortified no doubt by its effects on their performances. But that claim is unfortunately true in one sense - but not the one you mean - and that is the study has no scientific basis for making any claims about top athletes doping because it doesn't have the data. So neither do you.