Joshua Cheptegei is SUSPICIOUS

Armstronglivs wrote:

An opinion can have a factual basis to it - such as the 50/50 chance that a top athlete is clean or doped, while there may be more evidence that can be adduced to support either opinion. It doesn't become fact until it is proven beyond dispute. Your fixation on the meaning of the word takes the argument nowhere and you offer nothing to support any opinion you might hold about Cheptegei. That is because you aren't interested in the subject of the thread but only in trying to use a poorly understood linguistic point to prove me "wrong". Fail.

Is "50/50 chance that a top athlete is clean or doped" supposed to be your example of "factual basis", or "an opinion"?

You have referred to "50/50 chance" several times recently, but there is no factual basis to support that.

Renato Canova wrote:

Maybe I have some problem to understand the complicated way you write (for me, of course), but I have some doubt : I'm with you that ALMOST nobody can know if an athlete is clean or not, and yourself wrote there are 50/50 chances.

So said, why you always don't consider the 50% chances that an athlete is clean, but always speak about 100% chances that everybody is doped ?

And, if you accept the possibility that 50% of athletes are clean (but you don't know who), how is it possible to justify the advantage they can have from doping, at the level considered by some "pseudo-scientist" speaking of 5"-7" for 1500m, 30" for 5000m, 1' for 10000m and 4' for marathon ?

It is interesting to see both of these conflicting ideas argued so strongly:

- Doping has a big effect, creating unnatural performances, but at the same time, there is no way to distinguish doped versus clean performance based only on the performance -- a bit like the emporer's clothes.

50/50 is another way of saying "who knows? I don't. No one can say one way or another." And yet, you are a "doping denier" or a "doping apologist" for pointing out the uncertainty.

That's assuming 50/50 is accurate -- let's see if Armstronglivs can produce the factual basis for that.

Armstronglivs wrote:

An opinion can have a factual basis to it - such as the 50/50 chance that a top athlete is clean or doped, while there may be more evidence that can be adduced to support either opinion. It doesn't become fact until it is proven beyond dispute. Your fixation on the meaning of the word takes the argument nowhere and you offer nothing to support any opinion you might hold about Cheptegei. That is because you aren't interested in the subject of the thread but only in trying to use a poorly understood linguistic point to prove me "wrong". Fail.

An athlete is doped or not - it's not a point of some personal opinion. You still havn't got it. The earth was round even back when humans thought the earth is flat - is this really too much to comprehend?

I'm not more fixid on it than you: you - me - you - me - you... With the big difference that you just can't accept to being wrong on this subject - as on many subjects.

You have said none of those morons here have shown you to be wrong on something - this is wrong, demonstrably wrong. It's not very important for the subject here that you have used the word "opinion" not quite correctly - but that you are completely unable to just accept it and this point is over.

All this laughable discussions with your friend rekrunner are completely useless when you don't accept it WHEN you are wrong. And you ARE wrong sometimes.

Renato Canova wrote:

Maybe I have some problem to understand the complicated way you write (for me, of course), but I have some doubt : I'm with you that ALMOST nobody can know if an athlete is clean or not, and yourself wrote there are 50/50 chances.

So said, why you always don't consider the 50% chances that an athlete is clean, but always speak about 100% chances that everybody is doped ?

And, if you accept the possibility that 50% of athletes are clean (but you don't know who), how is it possible to justify the advantage they can have from doping, at the level considered by some "pseudo-scientist" speaking of 5"-7" for 1500m, 30" for 5000m, 1' for 10000m and 4' for marathon ?

Renato, I do acknowledge the possibility that an athlete may be clean, based on the 50/50 chance that might apply to any top athlete. I cannot say I am "100% sure" that any named athlete is doped (absent a doping violation) - or, conversely, they are clean, as some try to argue here. Pretty much everything claimed here is an estimate based on what is probably or likely. There are few certainties.

However, there are often factors to do with career performances as well as historical factors that suggest a higher probability of doping for some athletes - such as with the former E Bloc athletes and with the advent of EPO, as well as the rate of doping busts in some countries (like Kenya) and poor levels of testing in others.

I am not sure of the exact and measurable benefits that doping will provide, despite what some studies have concluded - it will vary amongst athletes - but I am sure there will be a benefit of some degree. Consequently, taking into account the sheer prevalence of doping with the benefits it provides I no longer have confidence that clean athletes can rise to the top in running, as well as many other sports. Regrettably now, just to be the best is cause for suspicion. I say that as one who had once loved the sport and admired its champions.

arhsrth wrote:

C*ck your leg now, kiwi idiot.

Renato presents an argument, that has a rational basis to it. Something you are unable to do.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

An opinion can have a factual basis to it - such as the 50/50 chance that a top athlete is clean or doped, while there may be more evidence that can be adduced to support either opinion. It doesn't become fact until it is proven beyond dispute. Your fixation on the meaning of the word takes the argument nowhere and you offer nothing to support any opinion you might hold about Cheptegei. That is because you aren't interested in the subject of the thread but only in trying to use a poorly understood linguistic point to prove me "wrong". Fail.

Is "50/50 chance that a top athlete is clean or doped" supposed to be your example of "factual basis", or "an opinion"?

You have referred to "50/50 chance" several times recently, but there is no factual basis to support that.

There is. There have been several credible estimates that have placed it in that territory, if not higher. But they are estimates, not findings.

You have missed the point. You are out of your depth.

It's at least 30%.

I do not know his details. How easy is it to beat current tests? Does his group do this stuff?

"It is interesting to see both of these conflicting ideas argued so strongly:

- Doping has a big effect, creating unnatural performances, but at the same time, there is no way to distinguish doped versus clean performance based only on the performance -- a bit like the emporer's clothes."(quote)

They are not conflicting ideas. There is enough known about doping that enables the conclusion that it will affect performances. Talent and training are also critical to performance. The question is whether doping played a part in performance. The estimated prevalence of doping at the top of sports suggests a high probability it will have. Doping cannot be discounted in any performance.

That does not mean that its presence is proved, only that it is possible if not highly likely. However, some performances are more suspicious than others. Hence these threads.

You arrogance really has no limit. And you STILL havn't got the point, even not with examples every child could understand.

Armstronglivs, you can believe it or not, but for me is a FACT that athletes can run WR in clean way, using training only. I'm sure 100% about the athletes who lived with me for 11 months per year in the same training camp, in the same hotel and, sometimes, in the same room.

I speak of WR holder like Shaheen and Moses Mosop, I speak of World Champions like Abel Kirui, Wilson Kiprop, Florence Kiplagat, and I speak of athletes who never were WR holders, but are still at the top of the World like Nicholas Kemboi.

People who think really talented athletes needs doping for running so fast, don't know the effects of top training ON big talents. One of them, is the rapidity of improvement.

Nicholas Kemboi was with me from 2001 and I supposed was a good athlete, but not a champion. I worked with him in direct way for about two weeks every 2-3 months, the other time I was in Italy working with the Italian Federation (I was the technical scientific director), and he never was able to run faster than 13'26". In 2003 he ran his first 10000m in Hengelo, running 28'19".

From the beginning of June, I could have a group of young athletes (all belonging to the management of Gianni Demadonna) with me in Davos (for 5 weeks) and after in St. Moritz, and for the first time I followed them on daily basis. In that period of time, Sheheen prepared hos first victory in World Championships, James Kwalia bettered the World Junior Record of Mile with 3'50"43 and ran 5000m in 12'54", Dorcus Inzikuru started to win every competition of steeple (something that never could do if alone in Uganda), and Nicholas Kemboi improved his time till 26'30" almost beating Gebrselassie in Bruxelles.

Same thing when we give too much importance to the new shoes. In 2012 I had an athlete (Jonathan Maiyo), teammate of Abel Kirui in training, of good (but not exceptional) talent, who ran 5 times HM between 59'02" and 59'27", and the marathon in 2h04'56", using shoes Mizuno with a thickness of 18mm. When Mosop ran his first marathon in Boston (2h03'06") he used Nike shoes with a very small thickness, and we preferred shoes with more hard consistency for allowed the full reactivity of feet (of course, for athletes having a good elastic reaction), so exactly the opposite of the current shoes. Moses used the same shoes on track too, when bettered the WR of 25000m and 30000m in Eugene, 40 days after his Boston marathon.

I had too many examples of top performances with old shoes, achieved by athletes COMPLETELY clean (many of them of good but not exceptional talent) for giving too much importance to the advantage of doping or of new shoes, like today many use to give.

And, in any case, I can assure that with high talent and proper training in altitude it's possible, still today, to attack WR and to win competitions against athletes who prefer some shortcut to a "complete" training (for example, runners of 1500m who don't train their aerobic power, preferring enhance it with EPO or similar blood manipulations).

5558 wrote:

You arrogance really has no limit. And you STILL havn't got the point, even not with examples every child could understand.

You are on the wrong thread.

I dont doubt that superior training will be the explainer of very high levels of performance, including those world record performances you refer to. However, what cannot be yet refuted is the possibility that those athletes you name could have run even faster if they had also doped, or whether an athlete of equal ability and training who doped could have produced a superior performance.

My scepticism is based on the fact that many many athletes in all disciplines continue to dope, and the clear advantages shown in the use of doping by those who were caught.

The world records you refer to are also chiefly on the roads, which have seen only a more recent focus in the sport, aside from the marathon. Yet we also see that numerous top runners - Olympic and world championship - in the marathon (women's) and half-marathon have doped. The blue riband events in track, from the sprints to the 10k have long been associated with doping, there are records that remain untouchable, and the best recent performances have come from nationalities with either a known high preponderance of doping or relatively poor testing.

The biopassport and improved tests - such as for EPO - have likely reduced the nature of doping from the levels practised in the 80's and 90's, but these antidoping measures can be successfully evaded through microdosing and the masking of drugs used. The biopassport and improved tests may explain the comparative leveling off in performances from that era but we see still that too many athletes seek to gain whatever advantage they can through drugs. If drugs weren't making much of a difference to their performances then we should see usage decline and not increase or at least continue as it has.

I respect that your experience has led you to conclude as you have, that talent and training can still beat doping at the very top, but the wider picture on that is less conclusive.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Is "50/50 chance that a top athlete is clean or doped" supposed to be your example of "factual basis", or "an opinion"?

You have referred to "50/50 chance" several times recently, but there is no factual basis to support that.

There is. There have been several credible estimates that have placed it in that territory, if not higher. But they are estimates, not findings.

Now who failed to answer the simple multiple choice question.

You said 50/50 chance, but the likelihood that your alleged but unspecified "several credible estimates" are reliable estimates of prevalence is suspect.

Armstrong don’t fall for Canova’s b.s. Canova is likely a very good coach but he is an obvious charlatan when it comes to this PED issue. Canova has told numerous falsehoods about EPO so there is no reason to trust him about his own athletes. Canova has every reason to lie. Poor character is what I see.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"It is interesting to see both of these conflicting ideas argued so strongly:

- Doping has a big effect, creating unnatural performances, but at the same time, there is no way to distinguish doped versus clean performance based only on the performance -- a bit like the emporer's clothes."(quote)

They are not conflicting ideas. There is enough known about doping that enables the conclusion that it will affect performances. Talent and training are also critical to performance. The question is whether doping played a part in performance. The estimated prevalence of doping at the top of sports suggests a high probability it will have. Doping cannot be discounted in any performance.

That does not mean that its presence is proved, only that it is possible if not highly likely. However, some performances are more suspicious than others. Hence these threads.

We aren't talking about "proved", but about 50/50 chance.

Saying something is possible doesn't address the conflict.

If prevalence is high, and effect is high, it doesn't follow that we cannot distinguish clean performances from doped performances.

Once again, you have yet to provide a factual basis for your suspicions, or to justify the use of terms like "high probability" and "highly likely".

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There is. There have been several credible estimates that have placed it in that territory, if not higher. But they are estimates, not findings.

Now who failed to answer the simple multiple choice question.

You said 50/50 chance, but the likelihood that your alleged but unspecified "several credible estimates" are reliable estimates of prevalence is suspect.

They will always be suspect to you. But I have read estimates from antidoping sources ranging from 10% at the lowest to up to 90%. WADA has suggested between 10-40% is likely, some surveys have placed to higher and other antidoping sources have concluded it is everywhere at the top championship level. I also know for a fact that it is there at college and amateur level, and amongst seniors. But that it cannot be definitively measured does not reduce its presence.

If prevalence is high - and it is - how do you rule out drugs in any given performance? It can be present at an amateur level - it is - or at the very top. The amateur won't attain the level of the best but may still be doped. Its presence may not be clearly signalled but is still there. What causes suspicion in any given athlete is the nature and level of their performances, their improvements - or big dips - who they are coached by, and even the country they come from, according to knowledge of testing and the incidence of doping violations in those countries.

You take two athletes who both run sub-13 for the 5k. One of them is doping. How do you know which one is, as the doped athlete has attained the same performance level as the clean athlete? Performance alone won't tell you if it is clean or not - unless you know something more about that athlete and their progression. Further, there is no definitive bar between a clean and a doped performance, as it will ultimately depend on the athlete in question. Hence the question is ultimately a matter of conjecture. But the uncomfortable fact in the middle of it is that doping simply cannot be ruled out for any athlete. Indeed, it can be assumed now as a likelihood, given the prevalence of doping.

Armstronglivs wrote:

They will always be suspect to you. But I have read estimates from antidoping sources ranging from 10% at the lowest to up to 90%. WADA has suggested between 10-40% is likely, some surveys have placed to higher and other antidoping sources have concluded it is everywhere at the top championship level. I also know for a fact that it is there at college and amateur level, and amongst seniors. But that it cannot be definitively measured does not reduce its presence.

Not only to me. Again -- you said 50/50 chance.

I have also seen estimates as low as 0%.

Whenever I have seen estimates as high as 90%, or higher, it has been associated with countries like Russia and Ukraine, and other countries not known for men's long distance running.

I have never seen East African estimates that high.

WADA has made no suggestion of the likelihood of prevalence estimates, but even assuming so, 10-40% is not 50/50.

Some surveys have attempted to make estimates which includes other events like sprints, field events, and race-walking. I have yet to see an accurate estimate for men's long distance running, for example.