Benard Kibet Koech, 5th in Paris Olympic 10,000, POPPED

As I wrote, you did say "scares others into doping less". Forgive me if you didn't mean that increased testing acted as a deterrent, or if I'm blurring banning of stars with the addition of ABP testing and increased AIU testing -- both of which led to the banning of stars.

My point is that whatever you are suggesting, it isn't well supported.

With respect to the study, they estimated blood doping prevalence using blood tests on the population of athletes, and compared the distribution of ABPS scores with reference populations. They wrote: "With the introduction of the ABP in 2011, a decrease in the prevalence of doping over time was hypothesized. However, our results do not support this hypothesis ..."

The study can be found here:

Cool study. I see

Our results from robust hematological parameters indicate an estimation of an overall blood doping prevalence of 18% in 2011 and 15% in 2013 (non-significant difference) in average in endurance athletes [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 14–22 and 12–19% for 2011 and 2013, respectively].

So they observed the expected decrease in blood doping, namely from 18% down to 15%, only it was within error because of huge confidence intervals (14 - 22% v 12 - 19%).

Rekrunner and you are playing ping pong with me. First you complain that I didn't go deep enough, and then I go deeper and Rekrunner complains it's too deep, as he wants to exclude everyone slower than the Kenyan NR pre-ABP (e.g. all 1500 m runners).

Now you want to do top-20 in 1500, but top-10 in the marathon, and exclude selected people and DQ'd times? Maybe you and rekrunner want to hash this out first.

But it would be interesting to see what your actual point is. Are you claiming that the increased testing and the increased number of bans at the Kenyan top has no effect on the Kenyan success? Why?

I didn't complain about the 1500m, as you only gave two lists for the half-marathon and the marathon. The pre-ABP reference for the half-marathon is #14 and for the marathon is #30, so perhaps Thoughtsleader and I aren't so far apart with respect to depth.

And I'm just using your own references. Again, you are the one who said your point was that "the increased AIU testing led to a decline of top Kenyan performances at the very top", also noting "Vast majority (of NRs were) pre-ABP, during the EPO heydays".

While the decline post-AIU (and/or post-ABP) might seem arguable for men's track events, however you want to slice it, the trend doesn't hold up at all on the roads, from 5km to the marathon, where despite increased AIU testing, Kenyans (as well as Ethiopians) have continued to steadily progress in significant numbers by a significant amount.

Similarly, it doesn't hold for the Kenyan women on the track, who, under the AIU, have set national records from 1500m to 10000m, and many top-5 and top-10 and top-20 times from 800m to 10000m, post-AIU, not to mention on the roads.

But now you are mixing the discussions. "Vast majority (of NRs were) pre-ABP, during the EPO heydays" was about the men's track events, as stated. I later added half and marathon lists because Thoughtsleader brought it up, in the context of doping, not in the context of pre- v. post-ABP.*

Given that the top 2 Kenyans ever in the half marathon got banned, including Kipruto as 10k world record holder, plus Koech as fastest ever over 10 miles, as well as A. Kiptum who was WR holder when banned, it is obviously wrong to claim that those road events are not impacted by the increased AIU testing/bans of Kenyans. That's the very top - going deeper as I did only emphasizes the depth of the problem.

Now the Kenyan female side is interesting. Road: we just saw the marathon world record holder banned, Chepngetich who was also HM WR holder before, and a number of WMM (Boston, London, Tokyo) winners, including Olympic Champ Sumgong, and the 2nd fastest 10k runner Anyango (sub 29!) ever, so the problem is huge on the female side, too.

Track: most high profile catch is steeplechase world record holder (Bahraini-turned) Jebet, plus world U20 silver winner B. Chebet, and African Champ Aprot. World Champ
(Kazakhstani-turned) Jeruto was provisionally suspended because of her ABP spikes, but ultimately set free, claiming Covid as the reason for her elevated hct.

Anyango of course also won a silver medal in the 3000 at the 2019 African U20 Championships, showing once more how interconnected track and road are.

I also note that men and women as well as track and road athletes are often on the same team. Just look at Sang's or Rosa's or Canova's or Salazar's athletes. It stands to reason that the relative lack of banned female Kenyan track stars is coincidental, and that they are no cleaner than their road or male counterparts. Time will tell, I hope.

* But this is also an interesting point. Do you think the 1500 - 10,000 benefit more from EPO than the marathon because they are run closer to or even at VO2max?

P.S. This is for you too: it would be interesting to see what your actual point is. Are you claiming that the increased testing and the increased number of bans at the Kenyan top has no effect on the Kenyan success? If so, why?

It is a pretty cool study, but also with limitations.

They looked a little deeper than the overall average, e.g. on a country by country basis, and on a gender basis. Their conclusion that the data doesn't support the hypothesis likely took more factors into account than the wide confidence interval.

For example, they noted that:

- The men increased, while the women decreased.

- Overall 8 countries decreased, 8 countries increased, and 2 stayed the same.

- One country increased their doping, but decreased their medals. Another decreased their doping, but increased their medals.

Recall around that timeframe, after the 2012 Olympics, the IAAF was starting to apply more pressure on Russia with respect to anti-doping, which might better explain why they decreased, rather than any hypothesized effect of the ABP.

I see also a limitation for small sample sizes, "one should note that the method used to determine prevalence estimates may produce a notable upward bias ..."

If I'm mixing up discussions, I'm glad that you can help clarify for me what your points are, and help me keep them separate from Thoughtsleader's points. It does seem like you are trying to make one point for track and a second one for the roads. Maybe my mistake is thinking that these two points were connected with each other. But then you show "once more how interconnected track and road are".

That is an impressive list of Kenyan busts. Looks like the AIU testing is working as designed and intended.

Note, I did not claim "road events are not impacted by the increased AIU testing/bans of Kenyans". I was talking about what you said your point was, and whether that impact resulted in a decline at the very top on the roads.

Do I think that EPO benefits 1500-10,000 more than the marathon? It's a defendable hypothesis. I've long questioned what the need for more oxygen to the muscles is when the effort is well below VO2max. But it's hard for me to think about which one is more, if either, when I have no relevant performance benefit data for either.

It's not clear from reading my posts? I am not "claiming that the increased testing and the increased number of bans at the Kenyan top has no effect on the Kenyan success". You claimed it led to a decline.

One point is that this decline you show for the track doesn't exist on the roads. Kenyans (and Ethiopians and recently Ugandans) have continued to set NRs on the roads, despite the ABP and increased AIU testing.

Another point is that this can be explained by many Kenyans deciding to skip the track, and go straight to the roads, sometime around 2010, when the IAAF switch the format from Golden League to Diamond League. Even if some of road athletes run track events, their training is not (always) focused on the track events, but road events.

Another point questions how significant the decline from AIU increased testing/bans (and the ABP testing) can be, considering the significant continued progress on the roads.

Another broader point is that it is important to consider and include factors besides doping and testing, such as a significant shift in track participation, and changes like supershoes. If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything just looks like nails.

Another point is to take care when using AI, as it is not always RI.

No, it's not clear. And it still is not. Sounds like you and Thoughtsleader agree that it has a (surely negative) effect, but does not lead to a decrease of the success (because the effect is so small?). But neither of you has said that clearly.

I find it significant for the success of a nation, when some of their Olympic Champs (Sumgong, Kiprop) and World Record setters (Kandie, Kipruto, A. Kiptum, Kipsang, Chepngetich) get banned, especially when close to their success—as it was in the majority of those. The only question might be, how significant. If you think otherwise, I don't understand the reasoning, but fine.

I think I’ve been relatively clear. It has a small effect because it deters blatant dopers, and increased testing now catches a lot of B and C tier athletes who were untested in the past. I don’t think it has some massive impact or that it is why Western countries are doing better. And I don’t think it only impacted Kenya, as I think other countries had more sophisticated doping programs and are measurably more diminished in distance running. When you have to ignore a gender and narrow events it seems you are manufacturing a conclusion.

You asked me if I was making some specific claim about the absence of "effect". The answer is no. Can you be more clear what you mean by "effect"? For example, increased AIU testing and bans have had a negative effect on Kenya's reputation among track fans, so then I could hardly claim "no effect".

You asked me what my points actually were, and I took the time and effort to re-enumerate them. I responded to your point about "decline", but not this broader point about "effect".

As I just wrote: "Sounds like you and Thoughtsleader agree that it has a (surely negative) effect, but does not lead to a decrease of the success (because the effect is so small?). But neither of you has said that clearly."

Thoughtsleader has now clarified that it does lead to a decrease of Kenyan success in his opinion. He said small, not massive; and I said significant. Fine.

Earlier you wrote "I am not "claiming that the increased testing and the increased number of bans at the Kenyan top has no effect on the Kenyan success". So you are aware of the kind of effect we are talking about, but you don't want to claim anything other that I am wrong in your opinion. Fine.

As for gender- and event-specific: I think it's mostly a question of time and coincidence which event is most strongly affected. For example, the first two big ones banned in the last decade were both female marathon winners (Jeptoo + Sumgong, winning Boston + Chicago + London + Olympics). So people may have thought in early 2017 thatthe marathon was the worst, or the ladies. Then they popped the male Olympic 1500 m Champ Kiprop, then the male 1500 m World Champ Manangoi etc. So the ratio keeps shifting. At this point in time, the Kenyan male HM runners appear to be the dirtiest, with two Kenyan world record setters banned, but it surely didn't look like that in 2020. Who knows which event will look worst in 2 - 3 years from now?

The AIU systematically targets athlete on occasion like Chepngetich. They don’t target event groups in that sort of manner. There’re a smattering of busts across all events, but we aren’t seeing this big decline you’re talking about. The HM decline? Well all the best HM guys in Kenya use HMs as a tuneup at this point as guys like Sawe, Mutiso, Korir et al are more fixated on winning Majors. The 1500 decline, I don’t see how it’s arguable when the country had all the sub-3:30 guys and 3-4 at worlds. So to me you are seeing drug testing/ABP doing their job and the biggest impact is the unbridled dopers (Chepngetich) get caught.

Well again, I made no claims either way yet about the effect of increased testing and/or increased bans. You are only wrong to think I made a claim yet about effect, or disagreed with you yet.

But if you want my opinion, then surely pulling stars out like Manangoi, for whereabouts failures, lowers Kenya's chance of success by one, by removing that one potential successful candidate from the pool. Perhaps that will also have a positive effect for future Kenyans, reminding them to be more diligent about their whereabouts obligations to avoid the same fate.

The busts of Jeptoo and Sumgong doesn't seem to have prevented Brigid Kosgei or Ruth Chepngetich from setting new world records, or 7 other Kenyan women from running sub-2:18 in the AIU era. Do you think that if the AIU weren't testing and banning, even more Kenyan women would have done better?

Not sure what effect Kiprop might have had, him being past his prime, and other athletes likely already micro-dosing EPO to avoid detection.

The bust of Abraham Kiptum didn't seem to prevent 8 more Kenyans running faster than him since, in the AIU era. Could they have more success in the half if Abraham Kiptum wasn't caught and banned?

I think I would have to give this question regarding the impact of testing and bans on Kenyan success some more rigorous thought, and I'm open to persuasion, but it doesn't seem immediately obvious to me that the effect would be significant.

Everybody gets caught! All my heroes can't be liars!

His point is that Kenyans use dope. It's a fact, Jack.

hes partially correct. True, all top Kenyans dope. That's a fact, but what he's missing is that every person at the top of the top uses it otherwise they wouldn't be where they are.

You think guys like Hocker, Kerr, Jakob are possibly clean? You think that 16-year-old lad running a faster mile than the legendary Peter Snell is clean? You think Bell running 1:54 at 32 is clean? Nope, they all use pharmaceutical products to push that last 10% of their performances otherwise they wouldn't even make it to the final.

It's a shady business, an inconvenient truth, but that's everyone doing anyway, so I don't blame them and I wouldn't even call that cheating. I would still enjoy the show as it is unlike Armstrong because I'm curious to see what the human's limit is. I don't care about the means so long as the end justifies it.

and before someone jumps in moralizing: "but what about the health of the athletes?"

Oh please, I watch athletics for its entertainment value, not having some kind of weird parasocial relationship with the athletes involved. they're just all strangers to me, why should I care about their health and why should you too?