Steeplecahse WR holder Ruth Jebet Banned for 4 years

Gary, you know doping is not legal, right? So you're not going to get top athletes promoting it and doing commercials for it like a supplement.

Instead we just have positive tests from many of the best athletes out there. There's the proof.

Stop acting like some top athlete needs to post his or her training and doping log.

I know you're going to post one of your long winded obfuscation responses.

Brahim Boulami wrote:

you know doping is not legal, right? So you're not going to get top athletes promoting it and doing commercials for it like a supplement.

Instead we just have positive tests from many of the best athletes out there. There's the proof.

Stop acting like some top athlete needs to post his or her training and doping log.

I know you're going to post one of your long winded obfuscation responses.

That's fine -- just don't call it knowledge or proof when it doesn't meet that standard.

I don't recall great scientists of the path asking for shortcuts and saying "Waaah -- I can't get data I need to prove my speculation. Can I call it a fact anyway? Can I smear winners just for succeeding and say things I can't prove because it's too hard? Come on guys. It's just not fair."

rekrunner wrote:

Brahim Boulami wrote:

you know doping is not legal, right? So you're not going to get top athletes promoting it and doing commercials for it like a supplement.

Instead we just have positive tests from many of the best athletes out there. There's the proof.

Stop acting like some top athlete needs to post his or her training and doping log.

I know you're going to post one of your long winded obfuscation responses.

That's fine -- just don't call it knowledge or proof when it doesn't meet that standard.

I don't recall great scientists of the path asking for shortcuts and saying "Waaah -- I can't get data I need to prove my speculation. Can I call it a fact anyway? Can I smear winners just for succeeding and say things I can't prove because it's too hard? Come on guys. It's just not fair."

The data is there, you just can't admit it.

rekrunner wrote:

Brahim Boulami wrote:

you know doping is not legal, right? So you're not going to get top athletes promoting it and doing commercials for it like a supplement.

Instead we just have positive tests from many of the best athletes out there. There's the proof.

Stop acting like some top athlete needs to post his or her training and doping log.

I know you're going to post one of your long winded obfuscation responses.

That's fine -- just don't call it knowledge or proof when it doesn't meet that standard.

I don't recall great scientists of the path asking for shortcuts and saying "Waaah -- I can't get data I need to prove my speculation. Can I call it a fact anyway? Can I smear winners just for succeeding and say things I can't prove because it's too hard? Come on guys. It's just not fair."

Your own arguments suffer from the same defect you level at others, which is a shortage of facts. You cannot prove the arguments you object to are wrong, and nor can you prove the athletes you choose to defend are clean. All you have is your plaintive plea that they should not be accused without proof. Yet the only proof you will accept is a confirmed doping violation, which occurs in fewer than 1% of elite athletes. Official estimates are that the incidence of doping is likely to be between 30-60%. The evidence for doping far outweighs your illogical partiality to believing that top athletes are clean. Scientists begin with a hypothesis - not a conclusion, as you do. But then you are no scientist.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A long-winded way of your still maintaining you know better than thousands of athletes, coaches and physicians.

Well that goes without saying, and is beside the point.

Who would have predicted you tripling-down on wimpiness?

Your own words - which you have just denied using - as you do. You are as chronic a liar as your fellow narcissist Donald.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So it "goes without saying" that you know better than thousands of athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians. And you have no sporting expertise. You are beyond ludicrous. Your narcissism is off the scale.

As it goes without saying, it should also go without saying that I did not say that -- they were your words.

You are placing a great deal of faith on the faith of others, trying to palm it off as knowledge.

I could be persuaded if some of these thousands of athletes, coaches, trainers, and physicians provided performance improvement data, and addressed potential confounders, estimating cumulative improvements from all non-doping sources.

I cannot be persuaded by your faith, nor your faith in their faith.

This is your on-going failure.

The words I referred to were irrefutably yours. A previous post - which I have copied - proves that. You clearly believe that your ridiculous theorizing trumps the experience of professionals. You are like an idiot who thinks reading Google for medical information makes him a doctor.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Well that goes without saying, and is beside the point.

Who would have predicted you tripling-down on wimpiness?

Your own words - which you have just denied using - as you do. You are as chronic a liar as your fellow narcissist Donald.

More insults from the old peabrain.

You know nothing about training and racing so all you do is cry DOPING and insult those who disagree with you.

Sad, sad little old man.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are like an idiot who thinks reading Google for medical information makes him a doctor.

Great description of what many of us think of you.

lololololol wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are like an idiot who thinks reading Google for medical information makes him a doctor.

Great description of what many of us think of you.

Mini-Me has returned.

lololololol wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your own words - which you have just denied using - as you do. You are as chronic a liar as your fellow narcissist Donald.

More insults from the old peabrain.

You know nothing about training and racing so all you do is cry DOPING and insult those who disagree with you.

Sad, sad little old man.

So you're ok with lying as well as doping. Figures.

Armstrong, you use two different weights and two different measures, when say that Rekrunner

can't proof some top athlete is clean, and at the same time you can't prove he is not clean.

For which reason, for example, I (who well know clean athletes were able to better WR and to win WCh and Olympics) have to think athletes SLOWER than runners whom I know clean, had to take some PED, when there is no evidence ?

The difference is that I know doping exists, I know some doping can give big advantage (steroids in throwing, jumping and sprinting), BUT I ALSO KNOW WHERE ATHLETES ARRIVED TILL NOW WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL HELP, LEGAL OR ILLEGAL.

This is my World on the ground, you are a lyon in fron of your computer, and your experience is based on what you THINK, not in what you KNOW.

So said, I'm the first asking to ban runners using EPO, not only, but also I ask to cancel ALL their results from the beginning of their career. But this not because the advantages they had with EPO (in some case, especially for short distances, good advantage, in other cases, connected with long distances, NO REAL ADVANTAGE, if not in their mind and their sel-confidence…), but because in their mind THEY WANTED TO CHEAT, and this is against the ethic not only in every sport, but also in the normal life.

Only you and about three other people believe that, Renato.

Brahim Boulami wrote:

The data is there, you just can't admit it.

I only ask that you provide it then.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Well that goes without saying, and is beside the point.

Who would have predicted you tripling-down on wimpiness?

Your own words - which you have just denied using - as you do. You are as chronic a liar as your fellow narcissist Donald.

I know *what* better? Your response was completely unconnected to my previous reply (which simply asked you to provide the foundation you said you had), so I thought it was just an open-ended assessment that I agreed with, but felt was beside the point.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your own arguments suffer from the same defect you level at others, which is a shortage of facts. You cannot prove the arguments you object to are wrong, and nor can you prove the athletes you choose to defend are clean. All you have is your plaintive plea that they should not be accused without proof. Yet the only proof you will accept is a confirmed doping violation, which occurs in fewer than 1% of elite athletes. Official estimates are that the incidence of doping is likely to be between 30-60%. The evidence for doping far outweighs your illogical partiality to believing that top athletes are clean. Scientists begin with a hypothesis - not a conclusion, as you do. But then you are no scientist.

It's your strawman of my arguments that suffer from these defects.

Recall my response to your question about El G -- I said exactly that -- we have a shortage of facts.

It is not the evidence of incidence of doping I doubt, but the relation of elite performances with doping.

Renato, what are your thoughts on Wilson Kipsang's suspension?

rekrunner wrote:

Brahim Boulami wrote:

The data is there, you just can't admit it.

I only ask that you provide it then.

Boulami, Ramzi, Armstrong, Jebet, Jeptoo, etc.

Tell me how many posters here believing in the effects of EPO have some experience as coaches of athletes of top international level (WR holders or winners of medals in top Championships).

If I think that EPO doesn't give advantages for top athletes, at the best of their training in altitude, because I have the proof that it's possible to better WRs training clean, maybe I have some more SPECIFIC knowledge than all the Others NOT believing that is possible.

I'm not interested to know if EPO can give advantages or not. I'm interested in coaching in CLEAN WAY athletes who can try to reach their best potential, and, because some of them are at the top of the World in clean way, I don't see any reason for thinking that :

1- Without doping is not possible to be at the top of the World

2- Consequentely all the top performers MUST be doped, also without any evidence.

Maybe EPO can really help the best runners, too. If it's true, this means that with EPO Kenenisa had to run 12'32" and under 26', Kipchoge under 2 h in a certificated Marathon, Kamworor in 57'20", and Shaheen had to run 7'45", Mosop 1:25 in 30 km on track and 2:01 in Marathon, and Ronald Kwemoi the WR of 1500m. But, sorry, while I don't have any doubt that all the above athletes ran their best times using only clean training, I have some doubt that, with EPO, they had the possibility to run what I wrote. This means, for me, that at that level EPO doesn't work, and I don't need any fake research for having my idea, BASED ON THE REALITY OF RESULTS, and not on tests on labs with runners not belonging to the same category of the best.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I only ask that you provide it then.

Boulami, Ramzi, Armstrong, Jebet, Jeptoo, etc.

Almost there. This thread was about the mile, but for each athlete, can you provide 1) performance data, and 2) magnitude of effect of confounders?

Only then can we start an analysis.