Lots of Kenyan's get caught cheating. Lots get caught. Occam's other razor says that there are many more that cheat that don't get caught.
Occam’s Razor should not be used to make more assumptions. The simplest explanation is in Kenya more tier B/C/D athletes clumsily cheat and are subject to tests (and bans) than anywhere else.
You just totally contradict yourself in those two statements.
Really? B C D Kenyans walk into most countries Olympic teams, so hardly 'lower tier'. Olympic/World Champions/marathon major winners have been caught, so obviously not all lower tier as well. And I don't care about the reasons why. They cheat. Get rid of the cheats. Get rid of the dirty European coaches and managers.
Really? B C D Kenyans walk into most countries Olympic teams, so hardly 'lower tier'. Olympic/World Champions/marathon major winners have been caught, so obviously not all lower tier as well. And I don't care about the reasons why. They cheat. Get rid of the cheats. Get rid of the dirty European coaches and managers.
Kenyan authorities seized a smuggled shipment of medication that can be used by athletes as performance-enhancing drugs, the country's national anti-doping body said Monday.
Occam’s Razor should not be used to make more assumptions. The simplest explanation is in Kenya more tier B/C/D athletes clumsily cheat and are subject to tests (and bans) than anywhere else.
You just totally contradict yourself in those two statements.
Just seeing this but no contradictions at all. There is a huge pool of A, B, C and D athletes in Kenya. The A athletes are tested the most and fail tests at the lowest rate by the percentages of the tiers of athletes. So the B-D athletes who are tested less (rarely OOC at all) yet fail at higher rates comes from a) clumsier doping that can lead to flunking in-competition tests b) more testing than would be usual for their level of athlete (when they are targeted by ADAK/AIU) c) more doping than elsewhere.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
These threads about Kenyan doping devolve into little more than a debate about how bad they are, with some maintaining that they are either totally corrupt or not all of them are doping and that the best aren't. When we are differing only by degrees it ceases to really matter how much or how little they are doping; the problem has been established and can neither be denied or argued away. The only fallback position for those who seek to minimise it is to claim, without proof, that doping doesn't aid their best athletes - who nonetheless are amongst those who dope.
You just totally contradict yourself in those two statements.
Just seeing this but no contradictions at all. There is a huge pool of A, B, C and D athletes in Kenya. The A athletes are tested the most and fail tests at the lowest rate by the percentages of the tiers of athletes. So the B-D athletes who are tested less (rarely OOC at all) yet fail at higher rates comes from a) clumsier doping that can lead to flunking in-competition tests b) more testing than would be usual for their level of athlete (when they are targeted by ADAK/AIU) c) more doping than elsewhere.
Well going back to the beginning of the argument:
Occam's other razor says that there are many more that cheat that don't get caught.
Just seeing this but no contradictions at all. There is a huge pool of A, B, C and D athletes in Kenya. The A athletes are tested the most and fail tests at the lowest rate by the percentages of the tiers of athletes. So the B-D athletes who are tested less (rarely OOC at all) yet fail at higher rates comes from a) clumsier doping that can lead to flunking in-competition tests b) more testing than would be usual for their level of athlete (when they are targeted by ADAK/AIU) c) more doping than elsewhere.
The AIU tells us pretty much the same: compared to all other countries, Kenya has a deep pool of talented distance running athletes -- hundreds, if not thousands -- and being in "Category A", means more Kenyan athletes are tested more often. Similarly, official reports from Anti-Doping Taskforces point to several causal factors: a lack of anti-doping information and education, negligence on the part of the athletes/doctors/chemists, exploitation by opportunistic foreign agents and coaches and local doctors/chemists, combined with a high incentive to use running to get out of poverty.
These threads about Kenyan doping devolve into little more than a debate about how bad they are, with some maintaining that they are either totally corrupt or not all of them are doping and that the best aren't. When we are differing only by degrees it ceases to really matter how much or how little they are doping; the problem has been established and can neither be denied or argued away. The only fallback position for those who seek to minimise it is to claim, without proof, that doping doesn't aid their best athletes - who nonetheless are amongst those who dope.
If you want to remove all of the discussion about the degrees, then doping has been established as a worldwide problem that can neither be denied or argued away.
The discussion about how, or whether, doping aided performance is independent of simply acknowledging that doping exists in some unknown degree.
Just seeing this but no contradictions at all. There is a huge pool of A, B, C and D athletes in Kenya. The A athletes are tested the most and fail tests at the lowest rate by the percentages of the tiers of athletes. So the B-D athletes who are tested less (rarely OOC at all) yet fail at higher rates comes from a) clumsier doping that can lead to flunking in-competition tests b) more testing than would be usual for their level of athlete (when they are targeted by ADAK/AIU) c) more doping than elsewhere.
The AIU tells us pretty much the same: compared to all other countries, Kenya has a deep pool of talented distance running athletes -- hundreds, if not thousands -- and being in "Category A", means more Kenyan athletes are tested more often. Similarly, official reports from Anti-Doping Taskforces point to several causal factors: a lack of anti-doping information and education, negligence on the part of the athletes/doctors/chemists, exploitation by opportunistic foreign agents and coaches and local doctors/chemists, combined with a high incentive to use running to get out of poverty.
And we have here the champion of that view that Kenyan doping isn't really that bad.
These threads about Kenyan doping devolve into little more than a debate about how bad they are, with some maintaining that they are either totally corrupt or not all of them are doping and that the best aren't. When we are differing only by degrees it ceases to really matter how much or how little they are doping; the problem has been established and can neither be denied or argued away. The only fallback position for those who seek to minimise it is to claim, without proof, that doping doesn't aid their best athletes - who nonetheless are amongst those who dope.
If you want to remove all of the discussion about the degrees, then doping has been established as a worldwide problem that can neither be denied or argued away.
The discussion about how, or whether, doping aided performance is independent of simply acknowledging that doping exists in some unknown degree.
Doping is indeed a world-wide problem - you're half way there - but the stream of violations shows it is quite obviously worse in Kenya than most other countries in the sport, the part you haven't yet caught up with.
It is equally comical that you see no connection between a high incidence of doping (it doesn't "exist in some unknown degree" but is a serious problem) and performance. There is no conceivable reason why so many athletes would dope if it didn't aid performance, even if we don't know the extent it will do so in any individual case. You might just as well argue that these athletes similarly only "believe" training will help them and there is no proof that it does because we can't measure the exact extent (especially for altitude-trained Kenyan distance runners) and there isn't any "data" showing that, it is all only speculation.
The AIU tells us pretty much the same: compared to all other countries, Kenya has a deep pool of talented distance running athletes -- hundreds, if not thousands -- and being in "Category A", means more Kenyan athletes are tested more often. Similarly, official reports from Anti-Doping Taskforces point to several causal factors: a lack of anti-doping information and education, negligence on the part of the athletes/doctors/chemists, exploitation by opportunistic foreign agents and coaches and local doctors/chemists, combined with a high incentive to use running to get out of poverty.
And we have here the champion of that view that Kenyan doping isn't really that bad.
Doping is indeed a world-wide problem - you're half way there - but the stream of violations shows it is quite obviously worse in Kenya than most other countries in the sport, the part you haven't yet caught up with.
It is equally comical that you see no connection between a high incidence of doping (it doesn't "exist in some unknown degree" but is a serious problem) and performance. There is no conceivable reason why so many athletes would dope if it didn't aid performance, even if we don't know the extent it will do so in any individual case. You might just as well argue that these athletes similarly only "believe" training will help them and there is no proof that it does because we can't measure the exact extent (especially for altitude-trained Kenyan distance runners) and there isn't any "data" showing that, it is all only speculation.
Now you are speculating about degree. But there are so many unanswered questions.
Is Kenyan prevalence higher as a percentage of athletes? Given the depth of distance running talent, the increase in athletes tested, and the increased testing, I would expect more Kenyans to test positive, even under the assumption of world-wide average doping prevalence. The steady stream of violations only tell me (along with the AIU) that Kenyan talent is deep and that testing has increased.
Regarding the connection I don't see, have you, or anyone, shown any connection between doping and elite distance running performances? How can I see what no one has shown? I will take your predicted non-responsive reply as a "no".
We see conceivable reasons all the time in these threads: it aids recovery; it boosts 20' cycling power and time to exhaustion; it increases VO2max and sub-VO2max on a treadmill; it increases RBC which can deliver more O2 to the muscles; etc. These substitute proxies are the wrong measures of elite distance running performance.
You still think I'm waiting to measure the "extent of gain" as if postiive gains have already been established for all dope for all athletes for all events in all states of training. Doping can be neutral and can even be detrimental to performance.
There is strong empirical evidence and observation dating back centuries and millenia of the correlation between training and performance. No one performs at the highest level without training. Training is one of the confounders to perceived gains attributed to doping.
The AIU tells us pretty much the same: compared to all other countries, Kenya has a deep pool of talented distance running athletes -- hundreds, if not thousands -- and being in "Category A", means more Kenyan athletes are tested more often. Similarly, official reports from Anti-Doping Taskforces point to several causal factors: a lack of anti-doping information and education, negligence on the part of the athletes/doctors/chemists, exploitation by opportunistic foreign agents and coaches and local doctors/chemists, combined with a high incentive to use running to get out of poverty.
And we have here the champion of that view that Kenyan doping isn't really that bad.
Doping is indeed a world-wide problem - you're half way there - but the stream of violations shows it is quite obviously worse in Kenya than most other countries in the sport, the part you haven't yet caught up with.
It is equally comical that you see no connection between a high incidence of doping (it doesn't "exist in some unknown degree" but is a serious problem) and performance. There is no conceivable reason why so many athletes would dope if it didn't aid performance, even if we don't know the extent it will do so in any individual case. You might just as well argue that these athletes similarly only "believe" training will help them and there is no proof that it does because we can't measure the exact extent (especially for altitude-trained Kenyan distance runners) and there isn't any "data" showing that, it is all only speculation.
Now you are speculating about degree. But there are so many unanswered questions.
Is Kenyan prevalence higher as a percentage of athletes? Given the depth of distance running talent, the increase in athletes tested, and the increased testing, I would expect more Kenyans to test positive, even under the assumption of world-wide average doping prevalence. The steady stream of violations only tell me (along with the AIU) that Kenyan talent is deep and that testing has increased.
Regarding the connection I don't see, have you, or anyone, shown any connection between doping and elite distance running performances? How can I see what no one has shown? I will take your predicted non-responsive reply as a "no".
We see conceivable reasons all the time in these threads: it aids recovery; it boosts 20' cycling power and time to exhaustion; it increases VO2max and sub-VO2max on a treadmill; it increases RBC which can deliver more O2 to the muscles; etc. These substitute proxies are the wrong measures of elite distance running performance.
You still think I'm waiting to measure the "extent of gain" as if postiive gains have already been established for all dope for all athletes for all events in all states of training. Doping can be neutral and can even be detrimental to performance.
There is strong empirical evidence and observation dating back centuries and millenia of the correlation between training and performance. No one performs at the highest level without training. Training is one of the confounders to perceived gains attributed to doping.
It's just as easy to say no one performs at the highest level without doping. So you think a few lab tests for non-elites tell you how much elite athletes gain from training? If that is so then, equally, a few lab tests for doped non-elite athletes will tell us about the effects of doping on elites.
So what are the exact gains the Kipchoge made from training? Or Kiptum? Or Viren, or Snell? Or - more interestingly - Ramzi, or Kiprop? If you can't quantify those gains you are only speculating about what training can do - just like you say we do about doping. And in the case of many top athletes now, who will be doping, you won't be able to distinguish whether their gains come from training or doping. All your reservations about doping can apply just as much to training, for the same apparent lack of specific, comprehensive and unequivocal data.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
