There's really no facts, it's just a bunch of suppositions, assumptions and mildly contradictory statements.
I understand fully why WADA treats whereabouts failures as doping violations. No, you still haven't explained why dopers would dodge tests unless they don't have resources, which an athlete like Kipchoge would have if he wanted. They ditch because they can't be sure if there's a test? Great, they can't keep taking the substance then, and they pile up missed tests, which attract more tests. In Russia they didn't run their doping programme with undetectable drugs, they just falsified tests. You know why? The tests are pretty good against most drugs.
I am fully aware of microdosing and beating the ABP. But it takes doping from major, full-blown doses to on-the-margins cheating, which yes I'm sure has an effect but not nearly what it would be if there was no testing at all.
I guess you can uncover the secret physician's room in Kaptagat where Kipchoge is teaming up with his group of doctors to microdose in sophisticated fashion all while making sure his ABP values stay 100% consistent. Or he's just gotten "lucky" with the timing of his tests, or a new wonder-drug we don't know about that athletes should be taking instead of EPO. Whatever protects your world-view.
Certainly, I could never be sure he or anyone else is cheating in some way, but to be sure they all are based on your logic is equally ridiculous.
Why do so many b-level Kenyan runners get busted with nandrolene SARMS, rat poison etc? Do you really think they are taking these peds but not EPO? So if these b-level athletes can escape detection for EPO, it should be relatively easy for the likes of Kipchoge, who has the equivalent Kenyan wealth of 1/4 billion dollars.
Why do so many b-level Kenyan runners get busted with nandrolene SARMS, rat poison etc? Do you really think they are taking these peds but not EPO? So if these b-level athletes can escape detection for EPO, it should be relatively easy for the likes of Kipchoge, who has the equivalent Kenyan wealth of 1/4 billion dollars.
Your logic doesn't make much sense. If EPO is such a silver bullet why mess around with these drugs of dubious benefit? Norandrosterone (Nandrolone) just took out two more athletes today. Clearly there is some sort of doping product that is going around or contamination with other doping products. I have no idea if those athletes are on EPO, it's worth noting of course plenty have rich athletes like Kiprop have gone down for EPO.
Let's be honest: Kipchoge runs a PR at 37, is the most consistent runter ever and some people scream doping.
Of course this might be. But very interesting that for some of those folks Meb doing the same thing After years and years of injury problems in Boston 2014 is no Problem at all.
Do I believe Meb was a doper? No.
Do I believe Kipchoge is in an other world performance wise vs Meb? Yes.
At least it'd be fair to give the benefit of the doubt.
10 years ago at age 27 Eliud ran a 27:11 to finish as the 7th Kenyan at the Kenya Olympic Trials 10000m at Hayward Field. Now at age 37 (almost 38) Eliud can open a marathon in 28:23 as if it is a walk in the park. What could Eliud have run Sunday for a road 10000m? Maybe 26:50? Amazing is what it is.
How fast do you think a 27:11 guy should be able to open a marathon? Just under 29. We aren't talking about some huge difference.
Dude had an off day at the trials and ran significantly worse than the 8:07/12:55 he also ran that year. Those are 26:40 type performances. In old shoes.. We aren't talking about someone who performed differently than the previous decade when the was a 12:50 runner.
There's really no facts, it's just a bunch of suppositions, assumptions and mildly contradictory statements.
I understand fully why WADA treats whereabouts failures as doping violations. No, you still haven't explained why dopers would dodge tests unless they don't have resources, which an athlete like Kipchoge would have if he wanted. They ditch because they can't be sure if there's a test? Great, they can't keep taking the substance then, and they pile up missed tests, which attract more tests. In Russia they didn't run their doping programme with undetectable drugs, they just falsified tests. You know why? The tests are pretty good against most drugs.
I am fully aware of microdosing and beating the ABP. But it takes doping from major, full-blown doses to on-the-margins cheating, which yes I'm sure has an effect but not nearly what it would be if there was no testing at all.
I guess you can uncover the secret physician's room in Kaptagat where Kipchoge is teaming up with his group of doctors to microdose in sophisticated fashion all while making sure his ABP values stay 100% consistent. Or he's just gotten "lucky" with the timing of his tests, or a new wonder-drug we don't know about that athletes should be taking instead of EPO. Whatever protects your world-view.
Certainly, I could never be sure he or anyone else is cheating in some way, but to be sure they all are based on your logic is equally ridiculous.
My comments aren't suppositions. They are statements from those whose responsibility is antidoping or who have investigated doping.
Your position is that despite the growth and increasing sophistication in doping an aging athlete who is far and away better than any other athlete, including those who are doped, and even better than his younger self, is not likely to be doping. It means of course that drugs are not performance enhancing because clean will still beat doped. Yet so many athletes seem to know what you don't and continue to seek whatever advantage they can. But in your world, it will never be enough to beat Kipchoge or even get near him. Reality stares you right in the face but you won't see it.
I have read comments from Pound making the same point as Yesalis above - and yet you duck the substantive point they were making over the red herring of comment attribution, and further suggesting that the observation no longer applies today, because you think antidoping has so improved. Howman has said even this year that doping continues to be ahead of antidoping - as it always has - which reinforces the claim that it is typically still only the dumb and the careless who get caught.
You avoid the known enormous discrepancy between the number of positive tests and estimates of actual doping in sports. Clearly, few dopers are caught.
You also fail to grasp why WADA treats a series of whereabouts failures as doping violations. With three failures, "innocent" explanations don't cut it. Dopers duck tests because they can't always be sure that there isn't a test for the drugs they are taking, and they may not have a team of doctors and trainers to make sure they don't get caught.
You are apparently unaware that athletes are able to beat the biopassport, through micro-dosing or taking drugs for which there is no test. It is estimated that at any one time there are a hundred substances out there for which there is no effective test.
Doping is a more than a billion dollar industry on the black market, that frequently involves organized crime. The practice makes use of science that continues to develop. It hasn't gone backwards in twenty years. Antidoping is always trying to play catch-up. As Howman acknowledges, antidoping cannot eradicate doping; it only hopes to try to minimise it. It is a vain hope, when few are caught and the rewards for success in sports today are fame, prestige and sometimes enormous wealth.
Like many fans you cling to the quaint notion that athletes today will not avail themselves of whatever advantage they can obtain to succeed. For many, their sport is their life. If dopers are driven to succeed how do you imagine clean athletes have any less ambition, and why would they be prepared to lose to doped competitors? We gained a snapshot of that in the women's 1500 at London 2012, when it emerged that most of the final were doping. The tip of an enormous iceberg.
My g-d, six pages now of philosophical rants and circular arguments. Seems like everybody has a hardened position. We have the cynics and nihilists on the one hand and the stoics and faithful on the other and then some realists in the middle. Nobody is changing anybody’s mind.
Personally, I find beauty in human achievement and prefer to inhabit a world where Kipchoge is revered and lauded until there is hard, cold evidence that he is not what he appears to be. Others think this is naive and setting oneself up for repeated disappointments. I find this crowd to be generally angry and lacking in the marvelous emotion of awe. I feel sorry for them a little because it’s nice to have heroes and to be amazed, but I’m done trying to convince anybody my view is the correct one.
Your comments about "reverence" and "awe" until there are "cold hard facts" remind me of Lance Armstrong fans before the cold hard facts emerged. The "cold hard facts" you are apparently unaware of are about the extent of doping in elite sport and what it can do to produce otherwise superhuman performances.
My g-d, six pages now of philosophical rants and circular arguments. Seems like everybody has a hardened position. We have the cynics and nihilists on the one hand and the stoics and faithful on the other and then some realists in the middle. Nobody is changing anybody’s mind.
Personally, I find beauty in human achievement and prefer to inhabit a world where Kipchoge is revered and lauded until there is hard, cold evidence that he is not what he appears to be. Others think this is naive and setting oneself up for repeated disappointments. I find this crowd to be generally angry and lacking in the marvelous emotion of awe. I feel sorry for them a little because it’s nice to have heroes and to be amazed, but I’m done trying to convince anybody my view is the correct one.
Your comments about "reverence" and "awe" until there are "cold hard facts" remind me of Lance Armstrong fans before the cold hard facts emerged. The "cold hard facts" you are apparently unaware of are about the extent of doping in elite sport and what it can do to produce otherwise superhuman performances.
I watched the race in the wee hours of Sunday morning, and to me watching Kipchoge was inspiring, beautiful actually. To you, it seems it was just another painful reminder of the evil that lurks in the hearts of men. I’d rather see it my way. You can feel any way you want. That’s your cross to bear.
Eliud could no longer break 27 minutes a decade ago. What the hell happened to completely transform him into the best long distance runner who ever lived?
Kipchoge ran a 8:07 2-mile indoors to soundly beat Mo Farah and Kenenisa's little brother on Feb. 18, 2012. And as we all know, Farah went on to win the Oly double just a few months later.
So the notion that Kipchoge was in physical decline is obviously BS. He just didn't run well enough when it counted to qualify for the Kenyan Oly team.
Besides, he's not the "best long distance runner who ever lived." He's the best marathoner who ever lived. If you don't know the difference, your opinion is worthless.
To use your Trump analogy, it's as likely a top athlete is doping today that Trump sought to overthrow the result of the last election.
So glad you mentioned the election-denier nonsense, because what they're doing is exactly what you're doing -- making claims without having a shred of evidence to support them.
And even you must know how well those claims held up under legal scrutiny, i.e., under oath.
Eliud could no longer break 27 minutes a decade ago. What the hell happened to completely transform him into the best long distance runner who ever lived?
Kipchoge ran a 8:07 2-mile indoors to soundly beat Mo Farah and Kenenisa's little brother on Feb. 18, 2012. And as we all know, Farah went on to win the Oly double just a few months later.
So the notion that Kipchoge was in physical decline is obviously BS. He just didn't run well enough when it counted to qualify for the Kenyan Oly team.
Besides, he's not the "best long distance runner who ever lived." He's the best marathoner who ever lived. If you don't know the difference, your opinion is worthless.
Of course Kipchoge was in decline. Kipchoge doesn’t have bad races. Kipchoge was no longer able to break 27 minutes. Kipchoge ran a nice 2 mile indoors but he no longer could compete against what history shows were a bunch of relative nobodies in the Kenya Trials at 10000m. Kipchoge is the best long distance runner who ever lived and I am sorry you are not bright enough to understand this. Of course Kipchoge is managed by Jos Hermens. Coached by Patrick Sang. Who is his doctor? Well maybe you can figure it out.
Your comments about "reverence" and "awe" until there are "cold hard facts" remind me of Lance Armstrong fans before the cold hard facts emerged. The "cold hard facts" you are apparently unaware of are about the extent of doping in elite sport and what it can do to produce otherwise superhuman performances.
I watched the race in the wee hours of Sunday morning, and to me watching Kipchoge was inspiring, beautiful actually. To you, it seems it was just another painful reminder of the evil that lurks in the hearts of men. I’d rather see it my way. You can feel any way you want. That’s your cross to bear.
There's a balance between cynicism and naievity. If Kipchoge was from a European country that had a doping bust rate like Kenya has, most people here would be outraged rather than inspired by him.
Kipchoge ran a 8:07 2-mile indoors to soundly beat Mo Farah and Kenenisa's little brother on Feb. 18, 2012. And as we all know, Farah went on to win the Oly double just a few months later.
So the notion that Kipchoge was in physical decline is obviously BS. He just didn't run well enough when it counted to qualify for the Kenyan Oly team.
Besides, he's not the "best long distance runner who ever lived." He's the best marathoner who ever lived. If you don't know the difference, your opinion is worthless.
Your comments about "reverence" and "awe" until there are "cold hard facts" remind me of Lance Armstrong fans before the cold hard facts emerged. The "cold hard facts" you are apparently unaware of are about the extent of doping in elite sport and what it can do to produce otherwise superhuman performances.
I watched the race in the wee hours of Sunday morning, and to me watching Kipchoge was inspiring, beautiful actually. To you, it seems it was just another painful reminder of the evil that lurks in the hearts of men. I’d rather see it my way. You can feel any way you want. That’s your cross to bear.
It isn't a cross to prefer truth over fantasy or illusions. Nor do I see it in your inflated sense of "another painful reminder of the evil that lurks in the hearts of men" - projecting somewhat there! I guess that's how you would see it - which is why you choose not to. I see it as simply what professional sport has become. What I regard as regrettable is how grown-ups prefer to cling to their fantasies.
To use your Trump analogy, it's as likely a top athlete is doping today that Trump sought to overthrow the result of the last election.
So glad you mentioned the election-denier nonsense, because what they're doing is exactly what you're doing -- making claims without having a shred of evidence to support them.
And even you must know how well those claims held up under legal scrutiny, i.e., under oath.
Biden won; Trump lied - he never stops. He incited an insurrection that was planned well in advance. But as you deny that you will deny doping and nothing will persuade you. Kipchoge could run 1.55 at 45 and you would still be cheering him on.
So glad you mentioned the election-denier nonsense, because what they're doing is exactly what you're doing -- making claims without having a shred of evidence to support them.
And even you must know how well those claims held up under legal scrutiny, i.e., under oath.
But as you deny that you will deny doping and nothing will persuade you.
Now you're just incoherent. I likened YOU to the election deniers, because -- like YOU -- they're making claims without having a shred of evidence to support them.
To use your Trump analogy, it's as likely a top athlete is doping today that Trump sought to overthrow the result of the last election.
So glad you mentioned the election-denier nonsense, because what they're doing is exactly what you're doing -- making claims without having a shred of evidence to support them.
And even you must know how well those claims held up under legal scrutiny, i.e., under oath.
I think I may have misunderstood your post. Election denial without evidence is nothing like speculation about doping, for which there is ample circumstantial evidence.
But as you deny that you will deny doping and nothing will persuade you.
Now you're just incoherent. I likened YOU to the election deniers, because -- like YOU -- they're making claims without having a shred of evidence to support them.
Capiche?
As I said above, I misunderstood your post. However I don't agree with it.
So glad you mentioned the election-denier nonsense, because what they're doing is exactly what you're doing -- making claims without having a shred of evidence to support them.
And even you must know how well those claims held up under legal scrutiny, i.e., under oath.
I think I may have misunderstood your post. Election denial without evidence is nothing like speculation about doping, for which there is ample circumstantial evidence.
There is no evidence, not even circumstantial, that Bob Beamon and David Moorcroft were dopers. But by your reasoning, the mere fact that anabolic steroids and blood doping existed in those days makes them suspect.
Are you honestly incapable of seeing the injustice of that thinking? It's essentially a presumption of guilt -- simply because they performed phenomenally.
I think I may have misunderstood your post. Election denial without evidence is nothing like speculation about doping, for which there is ample circumstantial evidence.
There is no evidence, not even circumstantial, that Bob Beamon and David Moorcroft were dopers. But by your reasoning, the mere fact that anabolic steroids and blood doping existed in those days makes them suspect.
Are you honestly incapable of seeing the injustice of that thinking? It's essentially a presumption of guilt -- simply because they performed phenomenally.
I didn't say that there was evidence that Beamon and Moorcroft doped. All I said is that it was possible because there were the means to dope in that era and testing was largely non-existent. However a case of probable doping can be made against an athlete like Kipchoge. Doping is far more prevalent today than it was 40 and 50 years ago and is more sophisticated and harder for antidoping to detect. So it is everywhere. That an athlete who was declining in his late twenties is now far away better as he approaches 40 and with no real rivals suggests doping is more than a possibility, because he will also be beating doped athletes. The likelihood of clean athletes - as it is believed Kipchoge is - setting world records against likely doped competition will be about zero. Lastly, he comes from a country which has serious doping issues.
To believe in Kipchoge's achievement you have to believe clean athletes can be far better than the best dopers and that instead of declining with age clean athletes will continue to improve as they get older. I have some real estate on the moon you may be interested in.
There is no evidence, not even circumstantial, that Bob Beamon and David Moorcroft were dopers. But by your reasoning, the mere fact that anabolic steroids and blood doping existed in those days makes them suspect.
Are you honestly incapable of seeing the injustice of that thinking? It's essentially a presumption of guilt -- simply because they performed phenomenally.
I didn't say that there was evidence that Beamon and Moorcroft doped. All I said is that it was possible because there were the means to dope in that era and testing was largely non-existent. However a case of probable doping can be made against an athlete like Kipchoge. Doping is far more prevalent today than it was 40 and 50 years ago and is more sophisticated and harder for antidoping to detect. So it is everywhere. That an athlete who was declining in his late twenties is now far away better as he approaches 40 and with no real rivals suggests doping is more than a possibility, because he will also be beating doped athletes. The likelihood of clean athletes - as it is believed Kipchoge is - setting world records against likely doped competition will be about zero. Lastly, he comes from a country which has serious doping issues.
To believe in Kipchoge's achievement you have to believe clean athletes can be far better than the best dopers and that instead of declining with age clean athletes will continue to improve as they get older. I have some real estate on the moon you may be interested in.
I'm sorry, disregard everything I just said above. I was just ranting.. Kipchoge is a phenomenal athlete and should be given the benefit if the doubt. Hugs
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.