Two more Kenyans banned Feb. 6, 2023

Bueller, Bueller, Bueller

It was said in an LR article (now behind a paywall) that they're able to access Ethiopia for testing fine.

that cocktail results in a 2:22 marathon? that's sad.

Looks like someone didn't read 10.2.1.2 yet, placing the burden on the ADO to prove intent.

Also of interest is 10.3.1, 10.3.2, and 10.6.

But he wants to GUESS his desired reality.

There is a reason why people like you don’t last long in positions of power, if they ever wind up there through pure luck. You can’t ban anybody for life over a doping infraction because there will always be cases of false positives, sabotage, etc. it’s the same as the arguments against the death penalty, innocent people have been put to death as a result faulty due process at best or pure corruption at worse. That’s an extreme example. Additionally, like in broader society where criminals serve a sentence and are let back into society, track needs to embrace the concept of forgiveness. Individuals who make mistakes must have a path back. People who commit murder are allowed back into society when they serve a sentence. Athletes who make a mistake should be allowed back to the sport. Repeat offenses for doping, given the typical 4-5 year ban timeliness, are basically the equivalent of a permanent ban since an athlete who has served two full bans are likely well last their competitive prime anyway.

in short, we should always leave the door open for people who screw up to redeem themselves.

I’ll admit, I miss read your post and apologize for the ad hominem

Today you have nothing to say about that guy you're always ranting about?

Today you have nothing to say about that guy you're always ranting about?

No the burden is on the athlete to prove it was not intentional; read the SH case.

Why do you post when you can’t read?

Further; the lab result is deemed a “ fact” and the burden is in the athlete to prove there has been a breach of the IST.

It must be tough for rekrunner to try and start posting on stuff he is so dumb about.

A 2-minute google search shows that both athletes proved non-intentional to the satisfaction of the tribunal, qualifying for a 2-year ban under 10.2.1.

Normally, that is your burden to take those 2 minutes to educate yourself, and not bite the hand that is feeding you.

It completely passes you by the one country having 40% of the drug busts with the rest of the world - more than a hundred nations - comprising the remaining 60% is an appalling indictment of Kenyan running. It is totally irrelevant to that point what performance benefit any gained from their doping. Doping is banned. Doping is cheating.

You fail to detect the irony in the question. But then irony requires intelligence.

Doping is probably considerably more organized in Ethiopia, and the athletes more schooled in avoiding detection.

What a curious post. It's so inaccurate in so many ways, it can only be trolling.

The cherry-picking of the example of sub-2:10 males comes from "jacksprat" in another thread. He had estimated 150 Kenyans in order to suggest it wouldn't add-up to 40%, when in fact I can count at least 532 Kenyans.

Counting Olympic medals gives too little data leading to wide deviations.

Just the same, at the 2021 (2020) Tokyo Olympics, Kenyan men won 5 medals. 5 out of 18 medals is 27.8%. Excluding the marathon (road), 4 out of 15 medals is 26.7%.

The 40% figure from Coe included both men and women, and was not limited to just Olympians, and not limited to the track and not limited to distance events. We should adapt 40% figure for just the men at the Olympics in distance events in order to compare apples to apples.

Note that the 40% is from the data of World Athletics, which does not include positive test results from NADOs and RADOs and other ADOs and ADAs. We should correct this for number of athletes tested by World Athletics to normalize the percentages, or wait for WADA to publish the real "global athletics" positive test data from all ADOs and ADAs. Even then, the testing among athletes are not uniform, with scarce resources biased towards targeting faster talented runners, while generally ignoring the slower runners, where doping is not relevant enough to impact athlete results or earnings.

Some years back, before the new shoes, I also "looked at the top" in another thread, counting how many athletes ran faster than times already achieved by 1990. As you move the threshold higher and higher, towards "the top", the proportion of Kenyan men increases, and non-African men decreases.

In the 28 year period in the marathon from 1990 to Jan. 2018, out of 201 athletes, I counted 61% Kenyans, 28% Ethiopians, 1.5% other East Africans, 3% North Africans, and 6% from the rest of the world, who ran sub-2:07:12 -- times achieved by Carlos Lopes and Steve Jones in the mid-1980s.

In the same 28 year period, across 6 distance events combined, from 1500m to the marathon, and de-duplicated, out of 341 unique athletes, I counted 56% Kenyans, 22% Ethiopians, 7% other East Africans, 7.4% North Africans, and 8% from the rest of the world.

So as damning as 40% may seem, it is certainly inflated by the higher quantities of talented athletes from Kenya. Looking at the remaining 60%, and factoring that Ethiopia is not a significant part of the AIU positive tests, the question becomes why these 60% non-Kenyan positive tests are not anywhere close to outperforming the Kenyans, either in quantity or in quality.

Rekrunner is about as atuned to the reality of the situation as that infamous Saddam Hussein army chief who claimed that Iraq was winning 'the mother of all battles' easily, while US tanks were pouring into Baghdad unopposed...

Or it is you failing to detect the irony in the response.

At this point -- I assume that your posts are 100% irony, rather than a reflection of reality.

I know it's complicated for you because it involves interpreting quantitative numbers in the context they were collected, but a high quantity of highly talented athletes at an average prevalence rate will predictably lead to a similar higher proportion of total testing and a higher proportion of positives tests.

What does 40% mean, in the AIU's words:

"The figures below only reflect the testing activities carried out by the AIU. The AIU’s testing is focused on elite top-end athletes and is designed to be specific, targeted and intelligence-led. The other levels of athletes are covered through the efforts of the National and Regional Anti Doping Organisations (NADOs and RADOs), and that data is collated and published separately by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)."

We don't need to guess too much about the AIU's distribution of total testing in recent years, because the AIU regularly publishes their testing figures:

- In 2020, the AIU reported that 46% of their testing was from Africans, and that 56% of their testing was for long distance events.

- In 2021, the AIU reported that 39.6% of their testing was from Africans, and that 50% of their testing was for long distance events.

The report for 2022 doesn't appear to be published yet, but 40% of positive tests from Kenyan athletes seems to be largely driven by the higher proportion of testing of distance running Africans. In other words, the 40%, as damning as it may seem at first, doesn't tell us much about true doping prevalence, as a percentage, of Kenyans, once you've normalized it for total testing and performance.