Is it fair to notice the world's 2 best distance runners Jacob Kiplimo and Beatrice Chebet both have Frederico Rosa as an agent?

Ummm... looks to me this was originally a question to HRE following apropos' remark about which agent had more than 15 banned athletes. Your counter question about Drummond (whom you brought up, nobody else) was a reflection, from an agent with more than 15 banned athletes, to a coach with only 1 confirmed banned athlete. You could/should have simply answered: 0.

But you had to ask counter questions (about Drummond and Conte, who both actually did get banned sooner or later) to deflect from Rosa.

I actually agree with you in one point - Rosa is rightfully not banned because of lack of evidence, and the journalist appears quite obsessive with writing "about Rosa (and Berardelli) no less than twelve times since July 2025" (taking your word for it) - 12 times in 8 months! But you are so provocative with all your distractions and weird questions and strange claims (1000s of Rosa athletes?) that you yourself end up hiding this point in endless and pointless back-and-forth.

If you agreed with me, aren't you ashamed that your first post was: "And here we go, with six more stupid questions from the troll. Keep them coming. Why do you ask so many stupid questions?"

You could have and should have said -- "hey at least one good point, rekster!".

That was long before the parallel question of sprinting was brought up.

I suppose I could have said "0", or "I don't know", or "that is irrelevant", or nothing at all, but I did try to steer the question back to something I thought was more relevant.

You keep saying these are "my distractions" and accusing me of "deflecting", but the most common pattern is someone responds to my posts, with a bunch of new points and/or questions and/or mistakes, which I address, answer, or correct, only for me to then be accused of deflection, or what now? -- hiding my original point in endless back and forth. But thanks for the insight. I guess I see the game now -- the goal is to actually create so many parallel endless back and forths in order to hide my original point.

Lastly, I found this published here at letsrun in 2017: "... as Rosa e Associati we’ve been following more than 2,000 Kenyan athletes over 27 years ...". And here we are 9 years later, so what, maybe more than 2667 athletes by now? Recall I find percentages better at putting things in perspective. 15 athletes out of 30 would be 50%, but out of 2667 is 0.56% -- two very different scenarios.

I wouldn't go as far as "obsessed" as some of the mentions are party to the story of an athlete doping, for example Chepngetich or Jeptoo among others. AI is not pinpoint accurate without a TON of prompts and tweaking, but generally this gives a good idea of the mentions of Rosa:

📊 By media type
Media typeEstimated mentionsPatternWire services (Reuters/AP)
10–30
Key source, widely syndicated
Mainstream outlets (BBC, etc.)
5–15
Event-driven
Regional / African media
20–50
More detailed coverage
Niche athletics media
10–40
Repetitive, opinion-heavy
Total (deduplicated)
~50–150
⚠️ Important distinction
This estimate is for:
👉 Editorial media coverage
It does NOT include:
Forums (LetsRun → would add hundreds of mentions)
Social media (→ thousands+)
Duplicate wire reprints counted separately

I'm attached to the idea that things should be "proved", whether it is in a court of law, in an arbitration, in a debate, or in science.

It's not that I want "something more" -- the WADA Code currently requires it. And it's not so impossible to get athletes to cooperate with an investigation in exchange for a reduced sentence.

How often does this happen? And it is not going to happen with Kenyans. Much too dangerous.

You live a very, very sheltered life if you think that's the case.

There are far worse things that can be done to a person than missing a few years of competition (especially if that person is isolated, poorly educated and living in a place that's rife with corruption).

Whether it is infrequent, or dangerous doesn't change the basic requirements or fundamental principles.

There is no law of rarity or no law of danger shortcut in logic that suddenly permits drawing conclusions without any substantial supporting evidence.

And again, the WADA Code requires such things to be "proved" to a fairly high standard before anti-doping bodies can consider sanctioning an agent.

I remain prepared to listen to arguments of substance.

Since I learned all these endless back and forth distractions distract from my main point, perhaps it is worth a new fresh look at the article in the original post, cleanly separated from all these other distractions.

The headline starts with "When stars like Jacob Kiplimo and Beatrice Chebet force an uncomfortable question about trust in performance"

This raises an immediate question in my mind: Is the headline correct? Do stars like Jacob Kiplimo and Beatrice Chebet force an uncomfortable question about trust in performance? I guess we are going to find out how, or rather when. I could arguably understand stars like Jeptoo, Sumgong, and Chepngetich, but I can't yet see how Kiplimo and Chebet are forcing such an uncomfortable question.

Then it continues with a sub-heading "But each time an athlete cheats and wins or lands on the podium ..."

Wait, what? Did I already miss something? How did we get here already? Did Kiplimo and Chebet cheat to win or land on the podium? Is that a premise we already need to accept. Later it is confirmed that the public doesn't know anything about that. OK.

But before the article even begins, the seed has been planted in the readers' mind that maybe Kiplimo and Chebet cheated to win or land on the podium.

Then the article starts, and we learn they both have world records and Rosa as an agent in common. True and true.

But what is the overarching question this is all leading to? "How do they make winning look so easy?"

Huh? That's where all this is going? As long as I've been running, there have always been talented runners who make winning look easy and effortless, while the ones working harder with greater visible effort come up second or last. Lately supershoes are making such efforts easier by reducing the energy cost of running.

I thought this article was gonna be about an uncomfortable question about trust. Isn't that really the overarching question?

But if "how winning looks so easy" is the "overarching question" that this circuitous intro leads to, the rest of the opinion piece does little to help answer that question. Rather it starts constructing the foundation for what seems like a new question about whether Rosa may play some role in his athletes' doping.

This all leaves me with several uncomfortable questions, but let's just keep to the one I asked before: given authorities were investigating back in 2016, is there yet any substantial evidence of any link between Rosa and the doping of any of his athletes, besides being their agent? Or are we really just gonna keep "Tucker Carlsoning" the topic by "Just asking questions" for the next ten years?

Thoughts welcome.

Could you maybe do that without asking 25 provocative questions, and actually make a point?

Actually no. I could not have said that, Rekster. Scroll up. At that point in the thread, you were still busy trolling around with your questions about the journalist and the timing and what not, instead of making the point that Rosa is rightfully not banned (and also instead of asking for evidence).

Africans are doping piles of crap. White guilt cucks keep worshipping them.

rekrunner,

Not being facetious, but today there was an announcement that Nancy Jelagat Meto, who won the Valencia Marathon in 2021 had tested positive for a masking agent and has been suspended for two years.

First she denied, which is understandable, almost everyone denies at first, then she admitted fault.

As you defend Kenyan doping (if that is the correct word to use), can you tell me, is this an error on ADAK or the AIU or WADA or the Kenyan High Court?

How would you explain this one (number 400 and something since 2012 - estimate).

Not sure what you don't understand. Of course their performances make people uncomfortable. I can't believe I'll have to spell this out.

There are hundred of doping positives from one country in East Africa and the others are mounting.

The fastest times ever are coming from East Africa and they are winning long distance races easily.

They keep losing those races because they're caught Doping later...already enriched from prize money and endorsements and sponsorships etc

Chebet and Kiplimo are from East Africa. They're breaking records going faster than the epidemic of dopers from the same continent.

Doping works, therefore people are uncomfortable because doping is still happening (clearly) yet they are still winning and breaking records. You can't say shoes , nutrition, training as that's available to all. Doping is still happening remember, so now people are right to be uncomfortable.Surely without Doping It would be like beating everyone, without the supershoes on while everyone else is wearing them ...and by a long way.

I get in a court of law you need to have certain proof, but it's less for civil cases where you don't require the same evidence burden.

In civil court I wonder would any world record in distance running pass now. Doubtful

Thank you for the question.

I find that two-way discussions are more fruitful if I listen to others before I make up my mind, by expressing my concerns and any points of confusion in thought-provoking questions. The journey is more important than the destination.

Now I am confronted with yet another distraction -- I was told this only muddies any point I want to make, and I fear if I respond, I will be the one accused again of deflection.

Some word must be incorrect, as I don't defend Kenyan doping, so I'm not sure how to respond, or if there was any error on their parts. Often the error is among the public.

My approach would be to see what information is available publicly to look for the best explanation, but seems like that is something you should do without me, and preferably republish it in an unbiased non-opinion piece.

I would look for information whether it was unintentional or intentional, and what the intent was, if available, and assess it for potential bias, if any.

If others dwell on her performance, which frequently happens, I would ask what the possible link is to a masking agent in 2026 to a performance in 2021, as the time order effect of any drug always happens after taking it.

As far as explaining number 400 and something, WADA and the AIU (Brett Clothier) have explained it many times in reports and interviews, and I have repeated these explanations many times. The possible categories are 1) neglect or lack of awareness, 2) exploitation by local chemists or doctors, or foreign agents, or 3) intentional doping.

I am more scientist and logician than lawyer. My expectation of proof has nothing to do with which court decides which questions of law. Everything you want to spell out will be subject to that expectation in the court of public debate, or else it will not be trustworthy.

Spelling it out means with specificity. It is a bad look to specifically blur Kenya so you can generally lump all East Africans together in one pot. You say "doping works", but again, without any specificity, that can mean a hundred things to a hundred people.

The fastest times are coming from East Africans, and have done so for decades, also when the East Africans have emigrated to other countries around the world, like Japan, Denmark, USA, etc.

The link is still missing that would connect these performances to the effects of doping, and just for East Africans. If it were that easy, these results wouldn't have stayed isolated among East Africans for so long.

I think the people theselves are their own cause of their discomfort, because they've convinced themselves of many things, substituting general fallacies for specific proofs.

So no shame? You didn't say.

You could've stayed silent then and waited to respond at the right moment. Or you could have answered Question #2, "What is the connection?", which is effectively asking for evidence. In fact, only that answer can lead to whether Rosa was rightfully, or wrongfully, not banned.

But you made a choice.

Sorry. Your reading comprehension is not amazing.

The way you answered suggests that you are writing in a second language (or more). So, to clarify, you are not Kenyan, nor former Kenyan nor from another East African country? Right?

No East Africans announced as testing positive for PEDs today.