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

Armstronglivs wrote:

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!

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.

i like where you are going with this....if we go with lifetime PRs im sure we royally f*ck them over, team anti dopers! post your 400 lifetime PR! we will win by a landslide

so far we have armstronglvs with a 50.2?

casual observer: ?

Coevett: i think his was 46,

me: 47.68

LoneStarXC: 60

once we have casual and coevetts times, then all we have to see is team lying apologists times and well game over

- the poster formally known as m!ndweak

Hey, I may be fat by letsrun standards, and old and slow by every standard, but 1:45? 1:25 shouldn't be a problem.

Fastest ever: 66 s. ?

But if we beat them, wont they just all say that they were loaded up with EPO and roids and this proves they are right and that PEDs don't work?

rekrunner wrote:

Team Doping Apologists asked me to join, but I respectfully declined...

Don't make the error in assuming that the dictionary definitions of the words "doping" and "apologist" have some to do with how the term "doping apologist" is used here, because it hasn't.

The term "doping apologist" just means anyone who either...

a)... questions in any way the material, logical soundness, conclusions or anything brought up by "anti-doping" people.

b)... or who conduct original research or link to material that questions the "anti-doping" people in any manner.

In essence, don't think what "apologist" has to do with what you are doing and not what "democratic" has to do with the 1975-79 Pol Pot "Democratic Cambodia" or what "liberal democratic" has to do with Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democratic Party of Russia.

Lolz. What a crazy comparison.

Look for example here in webster:

"Definition of apologist

: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

For example, rekrunner repeatedly wrote in defense of banned drug cheats Baumann and Decker and Jeptoo and Kiprop etc. He also repeatedly defended obvious users like El G, Paula, Farah etc.

So even our top apologist admitted:

And he loves to pretend that the doping problem is a lot smaller than it actually is (-> doping apologist):

Of course the 12% aren't really an estimate for doping - no one could actually believe such a ridiculously tiny number.

Not to mention how he loves to troll about the experimentally determined, according to the authors more likely under- than overestimated 43.6% of IAAF championship dopers.

Perhaps I reflected too much the process how I ended up into that list of trotskyite heretics, because rekrunner's reading of the material I am familiar with is fairly good (I haven't read the prevalence study).

rekrunner wrote:

I noticed that the choice of 400m is also an event that seems to be unimpacted at the top by the introduction of EPO into the sport.

I guess you're not familiar with these top 400m runners?

Josiane Tito (BRZ) 51.89 (EPO)

Pinar Saka (TUR) 51.53 (NR) (ABP-hematological anomalies)

Jerome Young (USA) 44.09 (EPO)

Yousef Masrahi (KSA) 43.93 (EPO)

*Masrahi's time is an Asian record and 15th fastest all-time!

I guess you would call EPO an all-purpose PED. Lol.

What's your M.O.? wrote:

Since you do "a & b" quite regularly -- what would be your modus operandi for doing that? Are you against the anti-doping experts or something? For example, do you still think Armstrong wasn't blood doping in his 09 TDF comeback? (Asheden & other experts reviewed his ABP data for that time period and said he was...and he was stripped of his podium finish). If you still think a notorious career doper wasn't blood doping in 09 -- then, IMO, you do sound like a doping apologist.

I have no other motives to write anything except to be interested in the issue, I have generally nothing against anti-doping experts even when there are some flaws in the system. It is also interesting that if I truly want to defend dopers, claim that it is inefficient with elites or want to whitewash Lasse Viren or whatever, why do I now and then bring forward evidence against my alleged "apologist" case?

When I had earlier had my suspicions about some aspects of the Michael Kalinski 2003 paper in the Cierpinski-thread, I later brought up voluntarily the following to correct my earlier skepticism. Why would I do this if I had some hidden motives?

I should add that I saw recently the Russian original copy of the N.I. Volkov dissertation thesis and Kalinski quotes from it very accurately.

I agree with Mike Ashenden that Armstrong most likely blood doped in 2009 even when the case never went to arbitration to bring up Armstrong's defence and when anti-doping specialist Rasmus Damsgraard defended the Texan. There a few anomalies in the case, which I have discussed elsewhere, but bringing these up shouldn't make anyone a "doping apologist" regardless of how much it deviates from your "case closed = shut up" - mentality.

rekrunner wrote:

BTW, I note that both JonO and Renato have been "outed" -- and this didn't earn your respect.

Do you respect JonO and his opinions?

Aragon wrote:

I have no other motives to write anything except to be interested in the issue, I have generally nothing against anti-doping experts even when there are some flaws in the system. It is also interesting that if I truly want to defend dopers, claim that it is inefficient with elites or want to whitewash Lasse Viren or whatever, why do I now and then bring forward evidence against my alleged "apologist" case?

Curious: What are some of the flaws you see? (I presume the ABP you're talking about?).

Maybe you understood "top" to be performances not near the top, but further down the list. Number 3 man all-time is from 1988, and top-2 women from mid-1980s. My all time list for women stops at 50.99 (3074 performances) -- so no, not familiar with these women. Jerome Young's best performance is outside top-100 and Yousef Al-Masrahi's best performance is outside top-50, versus number 3 , and number 42, and also number 53, all from 1988.

It's crazy out there wrote:

Josiane Tito (BRZ) 51.89 (EPO)

Pinar Saka (TUR) 51.53 (NR) (ABP-hematological anomalies)

Jerome Young (USA) 44.09 (EPO)

Yousef Masrahi (KSA) 43.93 (EPO)

*Masrahi's time is an Asian record and 15th fastest all-time!

C'mon rekrunner -- you're not going to start bickering back & forth with Chad again? Threads get ruined when you two go at it over & over again!

Bitching and whining and LOLing about someone'a background is a bad strategy to get information from someone if you are truly curious.

But on the other hand I am only an "IT guy" and not a clinical psychologist, so who am I to give advice on that issue.

lolz someone got a little butt hurt by my comment and had to have it deleted eh?

got to love LR....where some people secretly have mod abilities....they get to talk sh*t, insult, harass, hijack threads, but they dont like it when they get called out. i think its what is called hypocrisy.

grow some thicker skin and stop gutting out threads, i mean sh*t your getting paid to mod around, and you know this place makes money via clickbait material, so why the f*ck are you deleting comments that are not going against the rules of conduct? get over yourself, EPO works, stop deleting comments, and if you insist on deleting, then go through the racist, bigotry, homophobic, transphobic, antisemitic, anti muslim, etc threads...

your a grown a$$ man, stop being such a baby

- the poster formally known as m!ndweak

I haven't reported a single post ever, so no idea about what post you are talking about.

If you want to reproduce one filled with derogatory FU-material about me, please do go ahead and post it. I specifically want it not to be removed by the moderators nor to be reported by anyone.

Aragon wrote:

I haven't reported a single post ever, so no idea about what post you are talking about.

If you want to reproduce one filled with derogatory FU-material about me, please do go ahead and post it. I specifically want it not to be removed by the moderators nor to be reported by anyone.

im sorry man, i thought i replied to garys comment.....dont worry i know you arnt the grown man getting butt hurt about my stance on EPO....pretty obnoxious that not only have i been deleted on this thread but on others threads in the last 5 min....like what kind of sad pathetic person do you have to be to search out threads to delete me?

but yeah sorry man, i truly meant to reply to gary not you.

- the poster formally known as m!ndweak

I don't know what you said, but I count at least 5 of my replies deleted (replies to Coevett, you, casual obsever, Aragon, and come on, really?)

In case you missed, it, I recommend reading the Appendix to the study, which can be found here: Supplementary material 40279_2017_765_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (912 kb) Supplementary material 1 (PDF 911 kb)https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0765-4

Aragon wrote:

Perhaps I reflected too much the process how I ended up into that list of trotskyite heretics, because rekrunner's reading of the material I am familiar with is fairly good (I haven't read the prevalence study).

DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0765-4

Results

The estimated prevalence of past-year doping was 43.6% (95% confidence interval 39.4–47.9) at WCA and 57.1% (52.4–61.8) at PAG. The estimated prevalence of past-year supplement use at PAG was 70.1% (65.6–74.7%). Sensitivity analyses, assessing the robustness of these estimates under numerous hypothetical scenarios of intentional or unintentional noncompliance by respondents, suggested that we were unlikely to have overestimated the true prevalence of doping.

So, 43.6% estimated prevalence* during the IAAF World Championship 2011, unlikely to be overestimated based on sensitivity analyses under numerous hypothetical scenarios (see discussion in the article for details).

Rek pretends the real result is either 29 or 30%, depending on his mood, based on his one preferred hypothetical scenario found in the main text and the appendix, ignoring the others found in the main text and the appendix.

*Note this includes only the previous 12 months, not those who doped earlier and stopped.