Jakob's take on doping today versus 10 years ago

Agreed.

The actual 'talent pool' of dopers may be far smaller than the clean one. People assume that if five of the top 10 are doping, then 'half of the top athletes are doping', and in that case, how can a clean guy be beating the? But maybe they are all or mostly only elite because they are doping. Yeah, if Kerr was doping, he'd be running 3:24 so a clean Jakob isn't beating him. But he can beat a dirty Katir, who only hard-core Spanish fans would have heard of if he hadn't started juicing.

Man, your arguments and reasoning here are stunning and so detailed!

This guy claims the reporting of AIU suspensions of Kenyan athletes are 'lies', but thinks anybody who doesn't agree that all athletes dope is a 'gullible idiot'.

Yes, one should always have the newest research, and info about f.ex ABP. But since we are talking about Henrik, and how he was suspected many years ago, we have to use the evaluations that were done at the time…

”Hallen’s unsubstantiated opinion” -I don’t agree in your calling it that. He says it’s a reason why the athletes marked “likely doped” aren’t banned. And the reason is of course that Wada knows these marks had to be removed if they opened cases against the athletes -Wada would simply have lost (if they didn’t think so they would of course accused the athletes in a case). So why doesn’t Wada trust their own marks (“likely doping”). Well, I will only name a couple of research studies here:

1. There were a Wada approved research where 10 athletes got Epo, and ten not. The researchers then found a way (standard measurement of the ABP) to catch all of the first ten (the Epo guys). But the problem was that also two from the clean group gave (false) positive values. And even worse: Nothing in the research says anything of a control group that used altitude training..! Or if the athletes were top elite -the individual factor…

2. Yes, Hallen talks about the time up to 2009. But his research and evaluation of the current testing situation / ABP is from 2014. And when you are saying that everything got standardised and bettered in 2009, this doesn’t seem to be the situation (at all):

No altitude registering in the doping estimates from WC 2011. Only some registered in WC 2013 estimates, and the evaluation in 2014. And the researchers them selves are saying this is a weakness.

We don’t know if things got better after 2014. -We can just hope. This was the year Swedish TV made a documentary about xc elite skiers. They had gotten hold of the test results (ABP) of some named Worlds / Olympic winners, and released comments from top doping researchers that were 90% certain this confirmed doping. The Norwegian Andreas Aukland was one of the accused -he released all his test results / ABP, and Jostein Hallen, expert in doping and altitude training, did a detailed analysis of all the results and circumstances: He didn’t find anything suspicious at all, on the contrary; some of the values were too low and not too high -the athlete should have been in bed, and not won WC..!

You stress that athletes are starting to be popped by ABP. -Well, yes, but still not the amount one should expect compared to regularly tests. And few top athletes. -Rhonex Kipruto is one, but he was 16 when Henrik’s “likely doping” was leaked, so I doubt he was on that list. -I haven’t seen a single athlete (may of course have missed someone) from the list later popped by ABP -that speaks load about the insecurity here..!

You are mixing the years and procedures. The ABP started December 2009, Hallen talked about the preliminary times from 2002 - 2006 in an interview from 2014 (using a couple of assumptions), and Henrik was suspected based on 3 different tests from 2015/16. The 2011/2013 blood doping studies used different criteria than the ABP (resulting in much higher numbers) - no comparison there.

To date, over 180 sanctions were handed down based on the ABP. The ABP results also serve to target test the athletes - e.g. Kiprop was on that list from 2016, and then got caught in 2017. Jager and Henrik and Keitany for example got target tested at that time and failed to live up to previous glory ever since 2017. (Yes, injuries happen when you reduce the sauce but keep training as before.)

This debate about whether the sport was more - or less - doped 10 years ago than today misses the point. It is a doped sport; how doped is simply a matter of minor detail.

Is this satire ?

Yes, I’m mixing things in order to show you some similarities…

But firstly, a little about what I think we agree in: Yes, Hallen primarily talks about things that are old (pre 2009). And yes, the 2011/13 blood doping studies widened up the ABP criteria compared to the Wada base leaks (about Henrik and so on)… And even if Hallen in newer interviews doesn’t say anything about a conviction of the ABP and altitude training interpretation being better as time goes by I will guess he doesn’t deny the possibility. I myself certainly hope and believe things gradually are getting better here…

But now to the things we obviously disagree in, and the reasons for my “mixing”:

1. There’s a reason why Wada hasn’t made any cases based on the ABP in the leaked documents. And the reason is clearly that they know that a significant amount of their “likely doping” tags on athletes are wrong (these athletes being completely innocent), and that they don’t at all know who is dirty and who is clean… And this comes even down to the ones they suspect the most -if their suspect criteria / grading had some merit they could have used them to ban these athletes. But their own research shows that at least 2 (probably far more) out of 12 “likely doping” athletes are totally clean. Wada /WA should therefore apologise (publicly to all the named athletes) for using the term “likely doping” instead of only “to be followed up”..!

2. One would think Hallen’s remarks about lack of understanding of altitude training were restricted to the years before 2009 (cycling gets ABP in 2009, WA in 2011; your 2009 here is incorrect). And that improvement has been implemented, and good enough. But, shockingly, this doesn’t seem to be the case (and that’s why I mix in the studies from 2011/13 -as indications): The lack of altitude data in the studies (even as late as 2013), despite that the Wada researchers know this gives them (more) flawed estimates (doping prevalence) -they even say so themselves- is a huge red flag to me. Why on earth don’t they have these altitude registering -they could easily ask for them, or gotten them from Wada’s databases… -Is it really so that neither Wada in their (leaked) ABP registry have collected and analysed the athletes’ altitude history..! And what are the chances that when this work eventually and maybe partially starts that they do the analysis right when it comes to all the possible errors Hallen has warned about! (When they don’t care more than this, and even don’t care enough to replace the “likely doping” with a more scientific and objective term..).

And the two mentioned studies from 2011 and 2013 register a peculiar development: The researchers thought the doping prevalence would decrease these two years (athletes scared of the new implementation of ABP in 2011) -but the studies showed an increase. Hm, strange -the researchers don’t say it, but I do: Can increased use of altitude have given increased values here. Is it as simple as this when one skip an important parameter!?

3. I was a little puzzled the first time I read about Henrik’s “likely doping”, and the National team MD’s reply: “The fluctuations in Henrik’s blood values aligns perfectly with his altitude camps, and aren’t surprising at all..” (paraphrasing after memory). Because, man what a bad explanation -clearly Wada must have taken height for the altitude..! But that was before I got a little deeper, and now I really understand what MD Talsnes meant; Wada may be on thin ice here…

4. Henrik was fifth in OG 2012, and very near a bronze medal. So my guesses is August 2012 is the latest date for Wada’s investigation into him (given his blood values). The question is then: Did they have excellent routines for evaluating the impact of altitude training? The context (I have mentioned above) cries out a loud NO! And Henrik keeps having high values (Hallen says this is an individual thing, also when it comes to the impact of altitude), and he keeps being tested, and he keeps improving (pb in 1500m / mile, Euro champ in 2014).

5. Henrik is still highly suspected In February and April 2016 (leaked papers), although he has only ++ for urgency whereas most have +++. So is his altitude profile and individuality correctly interpreted now? -We just don’t know; what we know is that Wada don’t pop a single athlete based on this ABP list. They still don’t trust their own material… (Have to target test athletes instead).

6. “..failed to live up to previous glory ever, since 2017..” -Yeah, I can see you think this is a sign of previous doping (and now too scared). But you miss grossly here: Henrik pb’ed both in the 3000m and the 5000m in 2023 despite long time injuries (hasn’t raced the 1500m for a long time -worse distance because of the injuries). Your theory of injuries being less when being juiced is just a theory -dope could as likely put you into a so hard training regime that you get injured, who knows. -Speculation all this is..

Conclusion: Henrik may be totally clean. We just don’t know with him or anybody else without positive tests or investigation, or eventually a more safe proof ABP… Wada and WA really have some improvement to earn here.

ack ack ack ack

Curious. Can you explain that a bit more please?

a) "the reason is clearly that they know that a significant amount of their “likely doping” tags on athletes are wrong (these athletes being completely innocent)"

Where is that (clearly / wrong / innocent) coming from? Couldn't it be simply not enough evidence of being dirty?

b) "their own research shows that at least 2 (probably far more) out of 12 “likely doping” athletes are totally clean"

What research is that? Would you have a link?

Thank you

Here’s a link to the research:

propublica.org

Speed Bumps: Why It’s So Hard to Catch Cheaters in Track and Field

@propublica

A cache of leaked blood tests showed hundreds of track athletes have recorded results “suggestive of doping.” With the 2015 world track championships about to start, a look at why anti-doping tests are so ineffective.

Open link

a) As you can see from the research, the study showed that one athlete from the “innocent control group” (not any injected Epo by the researchers) was falsely popped as doped, when the strictness of the test was set high enough to popp 10 of the 11 that had gotten Epo injected in the experiment… This shows that even very strong suspicions and indications of blood doping based on fluctuations of blood values were wrong in some ten percentage. And this is only one of several problems with ABP accuracy….

Read the chapter “Yikes, so the burden of proof is really on the testers” -shows how athletes can be totally innocent despite being wrongly suspected (by fluctuations in their blood values).

b) For details in the study, click on the link study in this link I pasted above.