Kiptum's coach - "Doping is everywhere in Kenya, it's the clumsy ones who are caught”

Well at the very least of all the things to get popped for, beta blockers? I guess 10% of the USA is doping then.

This is basically just Nike Oregon Project TUE stuff, absolute amateur hour to get popped for that lol.

I'm pretty sure the secret sauce is something else

It hadn't been answered. It's been ducked. But if it is being maintained that doping doesn't help them it leads necessarily to the conclusion I posited, that Kenyan runners are dumber than most because they dope more than most. That's what your argument comes to.

I happen to think they are smart enough to know that doping helps them but not smart enough to know how to get away with it.

Saying doping is "throughout the sport" is not saying it is found in the some incidence everywhere. Some countries dope more than others. Like Kenya. Your attempts to be clever only show how intellectually incompetent you are.

The "lack of education" that Kiptum's coach refers to is that "clumsy" Kenyans don't know how to get away with doping. The smarter ones - the "better educated" - do. They aren't "clumsy". And they know doping helps them. All athletes do.

It wasn't beta-blockers. That article got it wrong, it was an asthma inhaler variant as posted straight from AIU's page here two pages ago.

There are none that confirm my "delusions" as they aren't delusions. They are amongst those who have shaped my understanding of doping. They are a wide variety sources. I won't bother to name them again, since you consider any who have a view different from your flat-earth perspective to be "fraudulent".

The question isn't in the thread title, it arises from point made that "doping is everywhere in Kenya" against the claim rekrunner makes that doping doesn't enhance elite performance.

"Note that Kiptum's coach does not say doping unnaturally enhanced the performance of any Kenyans."(quote)

He doesn't say it because it is a given. Were it not so he would have said that. "We Kenyans dope a lot but it doesn't make us faster". I expect he isn't an idiot or would wish to sound like one. You, on the other hand, have no such inhibition.

In other words, you can't name any authorities who say the things you say.

It's not so much a given, as an assumption you want to conclude.

Seems more likely if he was talking about performance, he would have said so. Instead he said things like: "negligence" from "medical treatment" and "victims of a lack of education and information."

No one said "found" and no one was saying "it is found in the some (sic) incidence everywhere". Most of this looks again like your non-authoritative imagination.

I don't see any details in the article suggesting Kiptum was talking about getting "away with doping" or that "all" athletes "know" that doping helps. Rather he referenced accidental doping during medical treatment, and Kenyan athletes being victims of a lack of information and education. We've known about these kinds of accidental positives since a 2017 report conducted by WADA, the AIU, and AK.

Yes. He said things like that ("negligence" in case of Kipkemoi, "victims of a lack of education and information" more generally about caught Kenyan dopers), but the final ruling said otherwise about Kipkemoi, as cited before in this thread:

"96. Thus, the Athlete’s conduct also falls short of the expected standard of behaviour for an athlete in his position and fails to establish that he bore No Significant Fault or Negligence. In light of the foregoing, and considering the absence of any circumstances that would mitigate the degree of fault or negligence attributable to the Athlete, the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the period of Ineligibility to be imposed in the matter at hand must be two years."

So, the coach is making excuses for his doped athlete, not exactly surprising.

You don't know what my argument comes to. You distort my words. It's impossible to have a reasonable, polite discussion with you.

Just this year alone.

Under the WADA Code, negligence is not an excuse. I think you are reading the ruling backwards, as both the coach and the ruling say the same thing: that the athlete was negligent. Failing to establish "No Significant Fault or Negligence" means "Significant Fault or Negligence".

Too dumb to understand the difference between can't and choose not to.

That's rich.

"why would a runner use a beta-blocker as a PED? You need the jitters"

This is a typical example of doping exercised for ignorance. If I want that a runner can run SLOWER, I can give a beta blocker, that doesn't allow the heart to work at its higher level, reducing the transport of Oxygen ad the level of working of the body.

The fact is that Kenyan doping includes the use of a lot of substances that doesn't produce any benefit for the performance, and some time REDUCE the performance itself.

In many cases, this is VOLUNTARY doping, also if the final drug is useless. In this case, is fair to give a period of ban, because the INTENTION of the athlete was, in any case, to look for some unfair aid.

But in several other cases the assumption of illegal drugs is absolutely casual, because the most part of drugs in Kenya comes from Asian Countries that don't have the must (Like in Europe and US) to detail the components on the container. Almost all those drugs, and mostly supplements coming from Asia, contains some steroid, in small quantity, because their final destination is for the gyms, and people frequenting gyms wants to increase their muscles without the limitations and the rules that every official sport discipline has about doping.

I can say that more than 50% of doped Kenyan athletes are not aware of what they take, and act individually without asking advices to some good doctor or their coach (supposing the coach can have experience, but in any case if honest can find the answers to the question).

Really? Cheating is obviously rife in Kenya. It wouldn't have anything to do with foreign managers or coaches?

On the contrary, this is just another one of your many self-delusions that I'm too smart to fall for.

None of the "authorities" you listed can or do support your beliefs because they do not say, nor have ever said, what you do about elite distance running performances, and would be unqualified to do so. Some speak in cautious terms of potential and maybes, precisely because they lack both the qualfications and observations to speak as authorities on elite distance running performance.

Much like a made for TV movie based on a true story, your beliefs are composed of a few sparse facts made more sensational by gossip, rumors and fallacies.