So, can we say we know it is more than 10%? If we can, what is the real number? And where did you get your result? Do you agree a poster should be banned because he asks questions? Answer them if you know the answer.
So... you have no facts, just questions, that's what i thought.
Why do you dislike people who bring facts to the discussion? Why do you want to ban someone who is polite and expresses his opinion by presenting facts? You make no sense.
Which "facts" are you talking about? I only see provocative questions designed to downplay the Kenyan doping ("Can we say we know it is more than 10%?") and veiled insults ("fans with no real knowledge of marathon performance").
I guess it would only be insulting for those who already think of themselves having no real knowledge, which only makes my point, and therefore cannot be insulting if it is also true.
I asked a simple yes/no question, and it is telling that no one has yet said "yes, we can say we know it is more than 10%" and then point me to that knowledge.
Does this count as facts: "The AIU says they are exploited, because there are so many talented runners to start with. Brett Clothier describes it as a pyramid of hundreds, if not a thousand, of next-level runners hoping to make it to the top." Which other country has "hundreds, or even thousands, of "top-class" athletes"?
I guess we could argue whether these are facts, or just the AIU's opinions.
Whatever you think of my provocative questions, they remain unanswered by both those with and without knowledge of marathon performance. The silence speaks volumes.
How about another provocative question. WADA reports annually that 1-2% of tests are positive -- is the Kenyan positive test rate higher, or about the same?
If no one knows any of these answers, and the best they can do is speculate, it is correct to say they are not speaking from knowledge.
All of these answers may or may not be worse for Kenyans -- my point is that we cannot tell these rates by the number of athletes busted by the AIU and/or ADAK.
I don't know if any of that is knowledge. Can we say we know it is more than 10%? I haven't seen any reliable figures of intentional Kenyan doping as a percentage. Have you?
When are the Brojos going to ban this troll?
What are you afraid of? Why would they ban me if my posts are within the posting guidelines?
It's like calling for the banning of all Kenyans when there are no rules that permit it.
Which "facts" are you talking about? I only see provocative questions designed to downplay the Kenyan doping ("Can we say we know it is more than 10%?") and veiled insults ("fans with no real knowledge of marathon performance").
I guess it would only be insulting for those who already think of themselves having no real knowledge, which only makes my point, and therefore cannot be insulting if it is also true.
I asked a simple yes/no question, and it is telling that no one has yet said "yes, we can say we know it is more than 10%" and then point me to that knowledge.
Does this count as facts: "The AIU says they are exploited, because there are so many talented runners to start with. Brett Clothier describes it as a pyramid of hundreds, if not a thousand, of next-level runners hoping to make it to the top." Which other country has "hundreds, or even thousands, of "top-class" athletes"?
I guess we could argue whether these are facts, or just the AIU's opinions.
Whatever you think of my provocative questions, they remain unanswered by both those with and without knowledge of marathon performance. The silence speaks volumes.
How about another provocative question. WADA reports annually that 1-2% of tests are positive -- is the Kenyan positive test rate higher, or about the same?
If no one knows any of these answers, and the best they can do is speculate, it is correct to say they are not speaking from knowledge.
All of these answers may or may not be worse for Kenyans -- my point is that we cannot tell these rates by the number of athletes busted by the AIU and/or ADAK.
Dopers are trying to hide. It is impossible to give actual precise numbers. You ask questions you know cannot be answered, it's intellectually dishonest. I'm 50 years old and have followed cycling and T&F my whole life. All the North American sports too. The song and dance is always the same.
Quit trying to hide behind numbers and use common sense for a change. Why is yourself worth wrapped up in this, and surely it is, to carry on so relentlessly as you do.
Dopers are trying to hide. It is impossible to give actual precise numbers. You ask questions you know cannot be answered, it's intellectually dishonest. I'm 50 years old and have followed cycling and T&F my whole life. All the North American sports too. The song and dance is always the same.
Quit trying to hide behind numbers and use common sense for a change. Why is yourself worth wrapped up in this, and surely it is, to carry on so relentlessly as you do.
My common sense tells me that, as you also indicate, doping are hiding everywhere, including athletes from many countries, also outside of Africa.
The numbers I would rather discuss are connected to performance. Recall we started talking about a 2:03:55 and a 2:04:18 marathon runner, busted for whereabouts and for steroids. What do we know about the connection, if any, to these violations and improved marathon performance as an effect caused by these violations, compared to what is likely possible without these violations?
This doesn't require any pyschoanalysis in order to participate in a discussion about performance.
Dopers are trying to hide. It is impossible to give actual precise numbers. You ask questions you know cannot be answered, it's intellectually dishonest. I'm 50 years old and have followed cycling and T&F my whole life. All the North American sports too. The song and dance is always the same.
Quit trying to hide behind numbers and use common sense for a change. Why is yourself worth wrapped up in this, and surely it is, to carry on so relentlessly as you do.
My common sense tells me that, as you also indicate, doping are hiding everywhere, including athletes from many countries, also outside of Africa.
The numbers I would rather discuss are connected to performance. Recall we started talking about a 2:03:55 and a 2:04:18 marathon runner, busted for whereabouts and for steroids. What do we know about the connection, if any, to these violations and improved marathon performance as an effect caused by these violations, compared to what is likely possible without these violations?
This doesn't require any pyschoanalysis in order to participate in a discussion about performance.
If steroids don’t work then why the f*&% are they all taking them?
I asked a simple yes/no question, and it is telling that no one has yet said "yes, we can say we know it is more than 10%" and then point me to that knowledge.
Yes. It is telling. It tells you that we all know it's a lot more than 10%, and we know you know it. Quick googling using rekrunner and prevalence and site:letsrun.com shows several instances where you yourself have quoted much higher numbers.
But fine, so you can finally stop trolling with your hilariously wrong 10%: here is a 2020 study with the numbers way above 10%:
In-competition blood doping alone is already 15 - 18% (12 - 22% including CI):
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].
Look at the intro too, which gives a nice overview, including:
For example, doping (in all forms) prevalence is said to range between 39 and 62% based on anonymous questionnaires answered by athletes competing in two 2011 competitions of the World Athletics [WA, formerly International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)] (Ulrich et al., 2018).
39 - 62% including all forms of doping and in- and out-of-competition .... and you troll here with 10%. LOL. Rekrunner "facts"...
My common sense tells me that, as you also indicate, doping are hiding everywhere, including athletes from many countries, also outside of Africa.
The numbers I would rather discuss are connected to performance. Recall we started talking about a 2:03:55 and a 2:04:18 marathon runner, busted for whereabouts and for steroids. What do we know about the connection, if any, to these violations and improved marathon performance as an effect caused by these violations, compared to what is likely possible without these violations?
This doesn't require any pyschoanalysis in order to participate in a discussion about performance.
If steroids don’t work then why the f*&% are they all taking them?
They work, even according to Canova, but ever since Canova explained that, rekrunner doesn't appreciate his expertise anymore.
Missing tests work for a while for hiding the doping, and even if you miss the 3rd within 12 months, it's still better than a positive, as you only get 2 years typically.
Rekrunner knows all of that too, but, well, rekrunner is rekrunner.
You dope in Kenya, you'll get caught. Even if you're third-tier nobody like most of these 26. None of them were ever going to stand out. Which country tests their 57th ranked runners in any event?
No offense to you as a person or Kenya as a nation but 26 bust at once should be grounds for a national ban for a couple years to address the problem
If steroids don’t work then why the f*&% are they all taking them?
That is the right question. Steroids have never been known to "work" for distance runners (with the exception of women in shorter distances requiring muscular strength).
The rationale will be something along the lines of quicker recovery enabling more training. But the question remains unasked and unanswered whether this produces faster performances than is possible with clean training at altitude.
I asked a simple yes/no question, and it is telling that no one has yet said "yes, we can say we know it is more than 10%" and then point me to that knowledge.
Yes. It is telling. It tells you that we all know it's a lot more than 10%, and we know you know it. Quick googling using rekrunner and prevalence and site:letsrun.com shows several instances where you yourself have quoted much higher numbers.
But fine, so you can finally stop trolling with your hilariously wrong 10%: here is a 2020 study with the numbers way above 10%:
In-competition blood doping alone is already 15 - 18% (12 - 22% including CI):
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].
Look at the intro too, which gives a nice overview, including:
For example, doping (in all forms) prevalence is said to range between 39 and 62% based on anonymous questionnaires answered by athletes competing in two 2011 competitions of the World Athletics [WA, formerly International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)] (Ulrich et al., 2018).
39 - 62% including all forms of doping and in- and out-of-competition .... and you troll here with 10%. LOL. Rekrunner "facts"...
Is this "knowledge"? The very first sentence in the introduction of this study "virtually" debunks that notion:
"The true prevalence of doping among athletes competing at the highest level remains virtually unknown ..."
And yet somehow you claim to know, and that I know, and that you know I know, something that your own reference says "remains virtually unknown"?
This alone proves my point. Should we bother to read any further? It doesn't get any better.
Reading on we can find significant expressed limitations with the WC blood data: "one should note that the method used to determine prevalence estimates may produce a notable upward bias" and "altitude exposure prior to the competitions as a confounding factor ... data about prior altitude exposure were missing for Daegu and only partially recorded in Moscow ..."
Anonymous surveys are no better. First and foremost, the question is whether anonymity ensures survey compliance. It is most troubling that the survey researchers recommended discarding 30% of their own data based on survey response time, in order to remove a large 12 percentage point bias (e.g. from automatic "yes" responders), without any guarantees that they removed all of the bias in the remaining 70% of the data. We cannot be sure the survey result reflects true doping prevelance, unbiased by survey respondant apathy.
Rather than calling it "knowledge", here's what your reference says: "these results shall first underline the large variability and heterogeneity in the determination of doping prevalence with a questionable significance."
Furthermore:
The question I raised here, in this thread about Kenyans, is about Kenyans who intentionally dope. In the 2011 analysis, only 47 of the 1808 athletes were Kenyan. In the 2013 analysis, only 49 of the 1875 athletes were Kenyan. WC Kenyans represented about 2.6% of the total WC athlete population.
From the other side, most of the Kenyans being busted today, among the "hundreds, if not thousands", in the Kenyan "pyramid" of "top-class" athletes, are not WC athletes.
Is the historical data collected from 2011 and 2013 even relevant today? This predates the IAAF-Russian scandal, and the creation of the AIU, and doesn't reflect any deterrent from the WADA investigations, raised public awareness, and increased testing.
Don't be obtuse. This is a primarily a distance running site. The percentage of dirty Kenyans is way more than any other country in those events; 800 to marathon. No need to answer back. I'm troll resistent.
If steroids don’t work then why the f*&% are they all taking them?
That is the right question. Steroids have never been known to "work" for distance runners (with the exception of women in shorter distances requiring muscular strength).
The rationale will be something along the lines of quicker recovery enabling more training. But the question remains unasked and unanswered whether this produces faster performances than is possible with clean training at altitude.
What's up rekrunner? Testosterone, anabolic steroids, SARMs, etc. - that's all "low-octane" doping for endurance athletes/distance runners (It's high-octane doping for strength & speed athletes!). It's not going to do much to improve performance for distance runners, IMO.
Those compounds would help an endurance athlete recover faster from an injury (and have used as such in the past). And they might recover more quickly & feel better the next day from a hard workout since intense endurance exercise increases cortisol levels which in return suppress testosterone levels.
Furthermore, an endurance athlete getting up in their age, say over 40, would probably benefit from testosterone as age-related testosterone decline starts after about age 35 with most men (TRT is huge with master distance runners these days).
When it comes to endurance sports & distance running it's all O2-vector doping to improve performance. This has been the gold standard since the induction of rEPO in the early 1990's.
If steroids don’t work then why the f*&% are they all taking them?
They work, even according to Canova, but ever since Canova explained that, rekrunner doesn't appreciate his expertise anymore.
Missing tests work for a while for hiding the doping, and even if you miss the 3rd within 12 months, it's still better than a positive, as you only get 2 years typically.
Rekrunner knows all of that too, but, well, rekrunner is rekrunner.
What did Canova explain? I did find one post where he hypothetically thinks what could probably be for Mosop. This hypothetical does not rise to the level of knowledge. Regarding what Canova explains, I can find many more posts that explain how drugs are not necessary to increase the volume of aerobic intensity, only a strong mind.
In any case, I don't blindly follow people - including Canova. Blindly following people risks becoming a "fallacy of appeal to authority".
I rather prefer to look at real data in context. Where is there any data suggesting that steroids made any marathon performances faster than was possible without? Did Canova's explanation provide any data for Mosop on steroids? We know that Russia has been doping their men and women with steroids since the 1970s. And yet the Russian men's marathon record is only 2:09:07. (For Coevett, the Soviet record from the Russian Republic is a comparable 2:09:17). These are about the times that Derek Clayton was running in the late '60s, and UK athletes like Ron Hill and Ian Thompson were running in the early '70s. Were they also on steroids?
Don't be obtuse. This is a primarily a distance running site. The percentage of dirty Kenyans is way more than any other country in those events; 800 to marathon. No need to answer back. I'm troll resistent.
The percentage of clean Kenyans is also way more than any other country in those events.
What's up rekrunner? Testosterone, anabolic steroids, SARMs, etc. - that's all "low-octane" doping for endurance athletes/distance runners (It's high-octane doping for strength & speed athletes!). It's not going to do much to improve performance for distance runners, IMO.
Those compounds would help an endurance athlete recover faster from an injury (and have used as such in the past). And they might recover more quickly & feel better the next day from a hard workout since intense endurance exercise increases cortisol levels which in return suppress testosterone levels.
Furthermore, an endurance athlete getting up in their age, say over 40, would probably benefit from testosterone as age-related testosterone decline starts after about age 35 with most men (TRT is huge with master distance runners these days).
When it comes to endurance sports & distance running it's all O2-vector doping to improve performance. This has been the gold standard since the induction of rEPO in the early 1990's.
Exactly. Distance runners historically didn't even believe in steroids, only blood doping. Here is what the infamous temporary marathon world best holder (disputed short course) Alberto Salazar expressed in 1999:
"I, naively, did not know the extent of doping in athletics and believed that it was a problem primarily in the sprint and weight events, as compared to distance running, where muscular power rather than endurance and cardiovascular ability is crucial to an athletes' success. Other than blood doping, which was rumored to have been used successfully by the Finns, there were not any prohibited practices or doping methods that were clearly beneficial for distance runners, or I did not know about them."
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.