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

Renato, first of all on this occasion I must apologize. I was rushing out the door this morning and went to reply to Casual's post about the 'cat-and-mouse game,' when authorities detect a means of doping, cheats look for another way to circumvent detection. This is obviously what has occurred in many places, in many endurance sports, recently. What happened here is I went to click the "reply" button but my page often loads in for ages with dozens of half screen pop-ups and then a page loads into some shopping page that I have quickly close and on this occasion my page loaded in a reply to "caller out of BS." I couldn't be stuffed reloading the previous page so I just added "small transfusions" hoping everyone would click that I was referring to the bold sentence from Casual's post. If that clears things up, I'm still not sure about transfusions in parts of Africa hence, the love of epo. However, the evidence indicates that cheats in more developed countries are using 250-300ml nowadays, instead of the old two pints-one litre full jugular method. On this issue though you have been remarkably inconsistent over the years, you told us that blood doping wouldn't work because your best athletes saw their hb/hgl values fall when in good shape, yet Moen and Kwemoi had high or rising values when in top shape.

Nice graphs ... Observations: - I find it interesting, for cycling, the ratio of extreme blood values, one method for estimating blood doping prevalence, on average, appears to be less than 12%, similar to what the anti-doping experts, in the 2011 IAAF (blood sample) study, found for IAAF blood samples for men. I note also that in the graph for cycling and running, these values are for samples and not athletes. The anti-doping experts reviewing the IAAF data suggested that blood doping prevalence among samples, would over-estimate the blood doping prevalence among athletes. (I can provide you the quotes again, if you need them.) - As you quoted, Ashenden told us that cyclists played a cat-and-mouse game with blood values. This means that the low values for cycling post-2007 likely do not reflect true blood doping prevalence. - Yet any suggestion that running was worse than cycling post 2007 seems to ignore that this cat-and-mouse game significantly hides blood doping use, and presumes that these values now fairly represent true doping prevalence, i.e. blood doping prevalence in cycling post 2007 was truly 2-4%, and blood doping prevalence in running was truly 5-7.5%. We could also suggest that cyclists just went to greater lengths to hide their blood doping. This suggestion is re-inforced by many anecdotes from cyclists, and the lack of such anecdotes from runners. - You provided a quote that mentioned cat-and-mouse games for cycling and skiing. I know you have access to a vast library of literature. Is there a similar expert reference and finding for running? - The rate of extreme values visibly and significantly declined since 2001. It peaked as high as more than 19% in 2002, dropping to less than 5% in 2008. Another interpretation of the declining rate of abnormal blood values could be that more runners found, through trial and error, that "neither EPO nor blood doping were beneficial", and "all of the above" did, to a large degree, "cede".

The inconsistency arises from your mis-characterization. I believe what Renato said is that there is no clear relationship between fast performance and high blood values. Runners often run their best at the end of the season, when these values are low. Renato gave us blood values and performances that showed those whose RBC responded best to altitude, were not the same as those whose performance responded best. We also saw in a Stray-Gundersen altitude study, that the "hi-low" group ran time trials faster, while the "hi-hi" group ran time trials slower, despite similar increases in blood values and VO2max. As you see, performances can be fast with high blood values and with low blood values, consistently indicating a weak correlation.

Subway Surfers wrote:

On this issue though you have been remarkably inconsistent over the years, you told us that blood doping wouldn't work because your best athletes saw their hb/hgl values fall when in good shape, yet Moen and Kwemoi had high or rising values when in top shape.

Too funny, considering the facts including the extremely generous threshold, and what you yourself write below about the cat-and-mouse game.

Obviously the 12% is an underestimation (how did the authors call it, minimal estimate?), just like the 44% from the survey...

No. Correct is:

Ashenden told us that athletes played a cat-and-mouse game with blood values. This means that the low values post-2007 likely do not reflect true blood doping prevalence.

That article was about, I cite, "professional endurance athletes", titled "Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping".

Spoiler alert 1: the thresholds are too generous.

Spoiler alert 2: their "microdose" went from 10 IU/kg rhEPO twice weekly to 40 IU/kg...

Spoiler alert 3: this led, on average, to an Hb increase of 5.8%.

Comment, I cite:

"This dosage/frequency combination spanned a range shown previously to enhance maximal oxygen uptake: 20–40 IU/kg (Berglund and Ekblom 1991); 20–50 IU/kg (Russell et al. 2002); 60 IU/kg (Thomsen et al. 2007)"

As for, does EPO work and cat and mouse:

"we surmised that in an environment where rhEPO is unreservedly acknowledged to be performance enhancing and thus highly coveted, an athlete selecting a doping regimen would place greater emphasis on finding the highest dosage which evaded detection, rather than the lowest dosage which yielded a performance enhancement."

No. Any such suggestion presumes that these trends - while the values are only the tip of the iceberg - are indicative of the real extent of the problem. Anecdotes of runners playing cat and mouse were just discussed here in this thread. You can add Kiprop and Jeptoo to that list (though they got caught after a while).

rekrunner wrote:

See here how the cyclists changed from extremely high ret-% (sign of EPO) after 2002 to extremely low ret-% (sign of blood transfusions), at first to a comparable extent, and then decreasing after the introduction of the APB:

https://i0.wp.com/www.sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Screen-shot-2011-03-20-at-7.18.png

See here how the runners actually came to be worse blood dopers than the cyclists starting in 2008:

http://features.thesundaytimes.co.uk/web/public/2015/the-doping-scandal/assets/images/cycling.jpg

[/quote]

I bet(t) that cyclists have moved away from epo, that is so yesterday. They'll all be on patches, androgel, painkillers and/or tramadol. Athletics also has a testosterone epidemic but no one is being busted. Look at modern sprinters they are way bigger than BJ or LC. Look at one of the British sprinters Akines or something, he makes Dwayne Chambers look like a high school nerd, muscles on top of muscles.

Renato Canova wrote:

And, for your info, I never did with my athletes some test about rethyculocytes, while investigations about the level of Hb is something normal for every coach, who wants to see the state of health of the athlete (and is a normal test for every person, the first asked by a doctor in any occasion).

Wash your mouth, and open your brain. And, if you are a man and not a "quaquaraqua", apologyze with ALL the subjects you consider dopers, without any evidence and any reason.

You apologize, you liar!

Here are the results of a reticulocyte testing on one of your athletes:

reticulocyt count n(‰) 40-140 87 5.Despite the high nr of adult red cells Ronald still has/ makes a high nr of reticulocytes, young red cells,

reticulocyt % fractie 0,4-2,4 1.48972602739726 The corresponding % of new red cells is with 1,49 in good range

I have no understanding of why you continue to lie about such things when your lies are so easily shown.

you know the reason.....there are people on here with mod abilities who are doping tool bag apologists, who have been caught lying just like renato...if you have mod abilities you can silence the truth aka delete the comments that expose the lying.

if one takes time to notice, when a thread gets gutted its never the doping apologists comments that have been erased....think about that for a bit

- the poster formally known as m!indweak

Ronald Kwemoi was THE ONLY athlete who had the full screaning, during a period post-injury, in Nederland. I discovered all the tests carried out only when I received the paper from the lab, and I had to ask them the "translation" of data (like Hb) that were checked using a different system, that I didn't know.

If you have the opportunity to see ALL the parameters, can understand that a type of check like this is not something usual, and can be done only for knowing exactly the situation of an athlete, at that time. This means that we can know the health of the athlete, before starting the preparation.

The test of Ronald was on 28 June 2017, 10 days after his WR in altitude (3'30"89), and we did this check-up because, immeditely after his victory in Trials, he started to feel some stomac problem and in Eldoret there was a diagnosis of "Typhus", something I didn't think was correct.

Since he was already entered in Paris DL (3000m) on 1st July, we left Iten some day before, in order to have a full check-up. This control was carried out by the Doctor of the Federation of Nederland working with the ice-skaters (among the bests in the world), and followed the full protocol they normally use.

So, stop invent situations that don't exist.

I didn't invent anything. You said that you never had any of your athletes tested for reticulocytes. That was a blatant lie.

You want to to stop calling you a liar? Stop telling lies.

Course there is nothing at all in the check-up which would be useful for diagnosing or treating typhus. Pretty strange that his doctor for typhus is calculating his Off-score...something that provides no value outside of evading anti-doping and something that regular doctors do not do.

rekrunner wrote:

I believe what Renato said is that there is no clear relationship between fast performance and high blood values.

Runners often run their best at the end of the season, when these values are low.

I don't know about that: According to the evidence from the CAS hearings, both Savinova (800) & Zaripova (SC) ran their all-time fastest with their highest Hgb & Off-scores readings from their ABP profile.

Savinova ran her PB (1:55.87) at Daegu (gold) with her highest Hgb (15.9/47.7 Hct) & highest Off-score (121.10). Zaripova ran her's (9:06.72) at London (gold) also recording her highest Hgb (16.0/48.0) and Off-score (112.40).

Also, are you familiar with the doping case of 3-time French 10,000 meter champion Riad Guerfi? (you live in France...right?).

Guerfi ran his 2 fastest times in the National Championships with his 2 highest Hgb levels: 29:09 - 18.0 Hgb (54.0) 154+ Off score & 29:04 - 17.2 (51.6) 133+ Off-score. His third championship was 29:54 - 16.0 (48.0). So, he ran about 50 secs faster with the 2 higher Hgb levels. He does have a sub-29 sandwiched in among those first 3 times but anti-doping didn't get any blood samples.

Only four (4) blood samples (his 4th one was 15.8/47.4 where he dropped out the race) were obtain for his profile over a period of about 5 yrs and his two fastest championships times were annulled for blood doping.

These cases seem to illustrate a relationship between fast performance and high blood values.

In the 2011 study, the authors used two measures: M1, minimal estimates without any assumptions on the doping method M2, estimates obtained assuming doping with rEPO microdoses Only M1 was called minimal. Both measures produced 12% for male samples. (Maybe 15%-16% if we consider endurance males only.) Contrary to the Tuebingen study, the authors of the IAAF study thought the prevalence would be even lower for athletes: "Nonrandom sampling among athletes makes the prevalence in populations of samples higher than the prevalence in populations of individuals." If "Ashenden told us that athletes played a cat-and-mouse game with blood values. This means that the low values post-2007 likely do not reflect true blood doping prevalence." is correct, then it is also correct that we cannot determine the true prevalence of either cycling, or running, post-2007 (or for any year for that matter), unless we know to which extent the various athletes from the different sports played cat and mouse. It would be premature to say running is worse than cycling, until we can determine prevalence more accurately. It would be wrong, for example, if cycling was 50% versus running's 45%, and cyclists, as a population, were just more sophisticated at hiding doping to beat the tests. The anecdotes of Kiprop and Jeptoo, both caught by urine tests, suggests a low level of sophistication.

This is the normal protocoll used in Nederland with all the athletes, in order to check their situation.

I never was interested to know the rethyculocytes of some my athletes, and also in the case of Ronald, it was for me only a curiosity, without any practical effect.

And, for your info, also in the past, when I had the opportunity to carry out a lot of blood tests with athletes of several different Countries (the period from 1990 and 2003, when the University in Torino had a good budget for some research, and the reserachers were particularly interested to have data of African runners), never there was some research regarding rethyculocytes, that have importance only for discovering possibilities of blood doping.

So, in all the data I have, there are not rethyculocytes, off-scores, or something strange, but BASIC values that I wanted to know in the athletes in periods of NO training, of LITTLE training, of HARD training, and finally in top shape.

And is because all these data are EFFECTS of training that I can say the values are, ALL (including Hb and Hct), lower when athletes are in their top shape, than when rest and are off training.

What you said was that you had never had the reticulocytes of any of your athletes tested. That is demonstrably false. Your "explanation" doesn't change any of that. Stop lying.

You've refused to provide the data from University of Torino. The data from other athletes you have provided has not proven to be consistent with the claims you have made for it. If you have the data produce it. If not, stop making claims about the data.

This is false. I have some data from your athletes that does not agree with that statement. It is just a flat-out lie. In response you have claimed several tests were done on equipment that was not calibrated, that the measurements were done in a non-standard form (they weren't), that male blood values were substituted for female values, and that your male marathoner had a .8 testosterone level. It is amazing the dissembling you have done on this.

And what about the anecdotes of Chepchirchir, Rutto & Kiptum, all caught by the ABP? And I bett there will more ABP busts forthcoming. ?

He said he didn't order it, the Dutch doctor did. Your demonstration is wrong. What the heck is wrong with you?

That's a sample size of 3.

Passport Era Doping wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I believe what Renato said is that there is no clear relationship between fast performance and high blood values.

Runners often run their best at the end of the season, when these values are low.

I don't know about that: ... both Savinova (800) & Zaripova (SC) ... French 10,000 meter champion Riad Guerfi?...

These cases seem to illustrate a relationship between fast performance and high blood values.

Also unsophisticated, according to a recent WADA report: "The doping practices of Kenyan athletes are unsophisticated, opportunistic, and uncoordinated."

Not Buying It wrote:

And what about the anecdotes of Chepchirchir, Rutto & Kiptum, all caught by the ABP? And I bett there will more ABP busts forthcoming. ?

rekrunner wrote:

Also unsophisticated, according to a recent WADA report: "The doping practices of Kenyan athletes are unsophisticated, opportunistic, and uncoordinated."

Not really uncoordinated if, for example, the practice of informing athletes of 'random' tests 24 hours in advance, or accepting bribes, is endemic as it appears to be. Maybe there isn't an individual at the top pulling the strings, but there were plenty of people at the top willing to let it happen for years.

With EPO on sale on every high street pharmacy and no testing, there wasn't any need for any sophistication or coordination.

Coevett wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Also unsophisticated, according to a recent WADA report: "The doping practices of Kenyan athletes are unsophisticated, opportunistic, and uncoordinated."

Not really uncoordinated if, for example, the practice of informing athletes of 'random' tests 24 hours in advance, or accepting bribes, is endemic as it appears to be. Maybe there isn't an individual at the top pulling the strings, but there were plenty of people at the top willing to let it happen for years.

With EPO on sale on every high street pharmacy and no testing, there wasn't any need for any sophistication or coordination.

The sophistication and coordination comes from the doping italian coaches/managers/agents. They have it down to a science

- the poster formally known as m!ndweak