Rhonex Kipruto suspended

rekrunner wrote:

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.

I read what I say. Do you? You have a curious way of completely agreeing with everything said, but with some kind of false outraged tone implying disagreement and implying I'm stupid for saying what you just repeat as if it were your own argument.

I'm not sure what you are not getting here. We are all in agreement that these studies are fundamentally defective for excluding elites. You are agreeing with Heuberger that all studies share that same fundamental defect. This isn't Heuberger's problem, but a problem of the whole scientific community as far back as 1991.

He doesn't "presume to come to a definitive view on doping performance", but rather says what you vehemently and adamantly repeated -- all studies to date are fundamentally defective. His recommendation is better studies.

Until better studies produce a scientific basis, the basis for elite athletes deciding to dope is not scientific, but rather mythic.

Keep this in mind the next time say "but what about the opinion of leading expert Schumacher he wrote a CAS hearing"? You can help me say that his opinion is more religion than science.

Keep this in mind the next time "Passport Doping" points to a new study which I say is irrelevant to a discussion about elite running performance. Instead of arguing with me, you should be consistent and point out to "Passport Doping" the fundamental defect you are so adamant about here.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"What I also know are the performance results of the fastest elite distance runners, dating as far back as the 1960s".(quote)

Every running geek knows those. But of itself it tells you nothing about doping when you don't know which of any of those athletes was doping.

But since you say the study has nothing to say of any substance about elite running performance it therefore had nothing to add to that subject. It was irrelevant - like most of your observations. But how do you know what is the "real world of elite runners" when you have never been an elite runner?

So the obvious conclusion is that we are all still at square one, starting at a blank drawing board. Science tells us nothing and historical performance tells us nothing. All we have is faithful religion and wives-tale gossip circulating among athletes and their fans.

But I'm curious. What qualifications do I need exactly to "know" that a study on 48 non-elites that measured mean and peak power is not the "real world of elite runners"? Didn't we both vehemently agree that that is a fundamental defect? Do you now suggest only current and former elite runners are able to see what both you and I just saw, and properly categorize this study as irrelevant?

I can see and say it is irrelevant because I have a brain, and I use it. I have never been a cat or a dog, but I know a dog is a not a cat when I see one.

If it helps, Canova has also said that these kinds of studies are defective by design and do not reflect the realities of elite performance. In the absence of any requisite personal knowledge, I defer to a knowledgeable elite coach in the sport for more than 50 years.

But by that same token, were you ever an elite runner? Was Coevett? Because you both presumed to speak on behalf of thousands of dopers, pretending to know their experience was precisely the one you want to believe in so strongly.

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

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.

rekrunner wrote:

woofy wrote:

I just find it a bit stunning that in this day and age people think that doping might have little effect.

Sport is big business. Olympic medals bring a lot to a country.

A huge amount of money will have gone into designing or assessing how effective various substances are for improving performance. Of course there are going to be things that work and work well! You can manipulate the human body, you can make recovery better, easier. You can do so many things. People were doping back in ancient times. We had this back in 1904 (and way before that). Look at the 1970s and 1980s. Things have moved on since then. The technology we have is incredible really.

Of course there are amazing, naturally talented athletes. But these same amazing naturally talented athletes will also most likely improve with PEDs. Does it not make sense that the majority of people at the top will be both?

Doping and anti-doping are also big business. They both become bigger when the benefits are hyped up with myths.

Whatever you think makes sense, even the most pessimistic "official" estimates show that doping is only a minority "of people at the top".

rekrunner wrote:

Passport Doping wrote:

Leading researchers in the field say otherwise:

Link:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31286284/

Not as much as you think.

Your study starts out with a concession that "it was reported that 4 of 28 studies can be considered of very high quality, i.e. placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover studies."

One of Heuberger's point is that most doping performance studies are of poor quality, and the field desparately needs higher quality studies. He limited his meta-search and performance findings to the highest quality studies.

Your study says "generally reported performance-enhancing effects of ABT" yet "The likely correlation between ABT volume and endurance performance was not evident in the few available studies".

The two meta-studies I referred to generally say "the correlation ... was not evident", and that any performance-enhancing effect has been over-estimated based on insufficient evidence.

Heuberger also conducted his own time trial study, where "lab" performance (blood and lactate and power and time to exhaustion) improved, while real-world performance (ascent of the Mont Ventoux) did not.

According to Heuberger, one of the problems with studies on "well trained" amateurs is that they measure wrong things (performance in the lab) on the wrong people. Your study doesn't really address these failures.

rekrunner wrote:

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.

I read what I say. Do you? You have a curious way of completely agreeing with everything said, but with some kind of false outraged tone implying disagreement and implying I'm stupid for saying what you just repeat as if it were your own argument.

I'm not sure what you are not getting here. We are all in agreement that these studies are fundamentally defective for excluding elites. You are agreeing with Heuberger that all studies share that same fundamental defect. This isn't Heuberger's problem, but a problem of the whole scientific community as far back as 1991.

He doesn't "presume to come to a definitive view on doping performance", but rather says what you vehemently and adamantly repeated -- all studies to date are fundamentally defective. His recommendation is better studies.

Until better studies produce a scientific basis, the basis for elite athletes deciding to dope is not scientific, but rather mythic.

Keep this in mind the next time say "but what about the opinion of leading expert Schumacher he wrote a CAS hearing"? You can help me say that his opinion is more religion than science.

Keep this in mind the next time "Passport Doping" points to a new study which I say is irrelevant to a discussion about elite running performance. Instead of arguing with me, you should be consistent and point out to "Passport Doping" the fundamental defect you are so adamant about here.