Sand Dunes wrote:
TheOhioState wrote:
Yep, and Sumgong tested clean in Rio.
Lance Armstrong did pretty well with testing during his 7 victory years.
Lance competed in a era before they had good testing.
That era is today, Dunes.
Sand Dunes wrote:
TheOhioState wrote:
Yep, and Sumgong tested clean in Rio.
Lance Armstrong did pretty well with testing during his 7 victory years.
Lance competed in a era before they had good testing.
That era is today, Dunes.
TheOhioState wrote:
Sand Dunes wrote:
Lance competed in a era before they had good testing.
That era is today, Dunes.
Explain all the recent drug bust?
Sand Dunes wrote:
TheOhioState wrote:
That era is today, Dunes.
Explain all the recent drug bust?
LOL Explain all the people who haven't been busted.
Enough of you. Good night.
So Dick Pound reckons that they are only catching 1% of the cheats.
The Aussie guy has a great take on it
WADA says only 1% of professional athletes are caught for doping. Yet their estimate of the actual proportion of dopers is 15-40%.. The submerged part of the iceberg. Some estimates are even higher. Clearly, most dopers are not being caught. But we have known that for years. As Dick Pound has said, "You have to be dumb or careless to be caught". Doping has long been way ahead of testing. The relevant question isn't anymore, who is doping, but, of any top athlete, why wouldn't they dope? This is their careers, greater success produces greater rewards, the risk of being caught is small (if you know how to go about it), and many if not most of your fellow-competitors are doping. But just don't talk about it, because your dumb fans won't understand what you have to do to make the best possible living from your sport. Did we think that amongst all those East German world record holders there were solitary beacons of an antiquated amateur sporting ethic, that sport should be clean? The recent parade of Kenyan positives (and let's not just single out one nation here - hullo, Russia, Jamaica) suggests little has changed. Why wouldn't Kipchoge dope? Or anyone else.
what's deal with Kipchoge? wrote:
Any insight into this?
The truthful statement is that Nike is on the juice.
Alberto Salazar has a Nike building named after him. Lance did also. Sick company to work for.
Kipchoge should help himself out by joining Adidas. He's clean but he runs for a dirty company.
qw wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
3% for doping overall, maybe. 3% for epo alone, no way.
EPO's first big effect was on the 1500 which had gone back above 3:30 for years after the banning of transfusions and introduction of OOC steroid testing. But your Morceli only lowered the WR by about 2 seconds or 1%. Your El Guerrouj added another second but that seemed to me to come from the steroid revival that occurred during his time.
EPO winning marathons makes even less sense. The whole point of EPO is to increase the blood's capacity to transport gases. That's applicable in events that push beyond that capacity, such as middle distance running, or XC skiing and cycling where relative rest periods allow short bursts of intense effort. Nobody ever gets remotely near their maximum gas transport rate in a marathon, no matter how elite. That maximum coincides with low intramuscular pH - in fact it depends on it as that pH increases the rate of gas exchange - and that low pH can't be maintained at a steady state for 2 hours. It's impossible.
The only way EPO makes sense for marathon doping is to counteract training-induced anemia. Some people may take it anyway, thinking it will work, and its effect over shorter distances may give them confidence. But I think the effective doping is a method of weight loss without inducing injury or weakness. Super-skinny people are more athletic than they used to be.
+1
Bad Wigins seems the only person thinking logically and having basic understanding in hematology.
Lets look at the good old 5k which is pretty much the biggest test of aerobic capacity. 1990 which is at the beginning of the EPO reign the 5k record was 12:58. In 2004 it was 12.37. Pretty much exactly a 3% gain:) Why didn't the 1500 improve as much? Maybe because it was limited more by the anaerobic system. Maybe Said was just a better 1500m runner than 5k one. :)
Everyone that has done EPO and talked about it has mentioned how much easier doing long sustained endurance events is. Maybe they are all suffering some placebo effect. And I am sure the people that do steriods and sit on their but and gain 5 lbs more of muscle than the ones that worked out are gaining all that mass from positive thoughts.
As yes a good chunk of doping is injury prevention. I don't think many people think steroids directly make you a faster marathoner. But if they let you run 10% more miles of the same quality without getting injured, I am not sure anyone would say that isn't a benefit. It is easy to do the work when you don't get injured doing it.
HIs best half marathon in 2014 plus his best half marathon in 2015 is slower than his marathon in 2018 age 34
Clerk wrote:
He hasn't failed a test, but here's what we know. An EPO test had been developed in 2001. In 2003, he emerged, winning Jr. XC and WC gold in 5000m. But before 2014, as Canova has said, there were no out of competition blood teats in Kenya. We also know that the EPO urine test has a small detection window (just a few hours), and that many urine samples are not analyzed for EPO (it is a seperate protocol from the stantard screening). We know that the development of the Biopassport has been called a guide for Blood Doping, because it gives more specfic parameters for what will be considered 'okay'. We know that athletes at altitude are less likely to be decided unanimously by the ABP panel for suspicion to open a case. We know that Kenyan and IAAF officials have offered and accepted bribes to cover up doping positives. We know that the current situation in Kenya for OOC tests is advanced warning, as a logistical necessity to bring athletes to a single location for testing.
We know that Kipchoge is incredibly talented. We know he is one of the most committed athletes on the planet. We know he has the hest genetics for distance running, and is immersed in the best culture for training. We know he is one of the all time fasteat performers in 5000m, 10000m and the marathon. We know that he isnfaster than known dopers, (and unknown dopers by inference). We know that doping offers a huge benefit, 3-10% by different analytic tools. (ready to watch the thread explode over that one?). We know the introduction of EPO caused a massive improvement in performances in all populations. We know Kenyans of the highest level have chosen to dope. We know that support staff for Kenyans of the highest level have facilitated doping.
It is up to you to decide if Kipchoge's work ethic and talent is enough to out-do other elite athletes who are doping (its not). It's up to you to decide if an athlete can maintain his performance level without doping (no one can). It's up to you do look beyond the direct evidence, and know that performance level and anti-doping context of the science and NADO are valid evidence to make a conclusion.
Most of your post was great synopsis of things we know and don't know. However, those two claims in parenthesis are BIG claims, and you gave absolutely zero support for them.
What reason do you have to believe there aren't uncovered physiological freaks out there that can run 2%, 5%, or even 20% faster than anyone else? I don't think we really have any way of knowing what the limits are of physiology for a person, certainly not the extent that we can say "The greatest possible outlier is this good". This is the claim you are making. I'm happy to entertain that claim, but it's a bold and significant claim, and certainly one in which you'd need a good body of evidence to justify making at all.
Right now you've got a great, anaytical post that's an excellent recap of doping, but it suddenly goes into the territory of feelings for the key part of your claim.
Honestly I want say no. But I suspect that if I had the chance to bet a big amount of money (and to know the thruth)on the fact that he's using peds or not I would bet money that he's not different from the others that have been caught till now. But of course I would be very happy to lose my money.
But then if he really totally clean and he 's able to run 2:01:39 Well then is a revolution! Is something that if I'm able to run
such a performance totally clean I need to shout in face of all the dopers , of all the wannabe dopers, of all young athletes
in Kenya, in Usa , in Europe in schools . Hey guys I have run 2:01:39 totally clean. You dont need to take that rubbish cos I am
the living proof that doping dont make you go faster. Imagine!!! You just run 2:01:39 totally clean!!! How do you feel???
I would feel like I wanted to shout to everybody and especially to the young athletes that they dont need doping!!!!
It would be a revolution!!! And he himself with that message could fight the cancer of doping!!And this would be the first thing I would say after win the marathon and made the world record.
And this especially after all doping problems in Kenya in the last few years. Who would take Epo again if somebody can run 2:01:39 totally clean?
Maybe for the company that produce Epo and gains lot of money thanks to Epo use as a ped in all different sport would be a bad day.
Clerk wrote:
you walked into this one wrote:
I'm with El Keniano on this one. The "but he beats dopers" argument is a logic fallacy. It ignores probabilities and raw talent.
Consider basketball for a moment. The athletes in the NBA are ridiculous genetic freaks of nature. 6-7 ft tall and more nimble, quick, and coordinated than anybody that size should be. And yet you have Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, etc. etc. Guys who are head and shoulders above everybody else. They are statistical outliers from the outliers. Freaks of the freaks. But there are only 1, maybe 2 of them a generation.
Why shouldn't we expect the same in distance running? So you have the genetic freaks (Rupp, Solinski, Alan Webb, a few Africans every year) who are amazing. Sub 3:30, 13:00, 27:00, 2:05 talents. And then there are the freaks of the freaks (Bekele, Geb, Kipchoge, maybe Mo & Tergat) who are one-of-a-kind. Untouchable.
It is statistically possible to have these rare outliers who, clean & at their best, are untouchable even if everyone else is doped to the trachea. (doped to the gills is a tired phrase)
Kipchoge is an outlier. But he is an outlier beyond what we know is a doped baseline. Kipchoge was an outlier when there was no Biological Passport, and blood doping was less restricted. He is an outlier in a sport when one-third of 2011 World Championship qualifiers anonymously admitted to doping in the past year. He is an outlier in a nation that didn't take any out of competition blood tests until 2015. He is an outlier in a nation with several dozen positive tests from other athletes. He is an outlier in events that showed one-third of endurance medalists (55 gold medalists) blood doped between 2001 and 2012.
So given the pattern and culture of the sport, there is no way to assume that Kipchoge is clean, or that the runners and performances you are measuring him against were clean.
Now, this I strongly agree with. There is absolutely NO way to assume Kipchoge is clean, and doing so is ridiculous. Conversely, there is also no way to assume Kipchoge is doping either, at least that I know of. We just flat out don't know the extent to which it is possible to have genetic freaks.
Let's assume a guy like Yuki is a baseline for clean, I'd be unbelievably shocked if he doped. That puts 2:08 or so as best possible clean performance. We can assume all performances faster than that are the result of doping. Given that, what's to say a guy like Kipchoge can't come along and be 5% (2:01:30) better than a guy like Yuki? Of course, the odds of this are very, very low. Anyone who lists Kipchoge as anything other than "likely to be doping" in their minds is being either willfully ignorant, or making a very deep appeal to what they believe Kipchoge's character to be.
However, your claim was not that Kipchoge is probably doping, it's that he IS doping since you stated emphatically it's not possible to perform at that level without drugs. Where is the basis for that claim?
LM wrote:
Clerk wrote:
Kipchoge is an outlier. But he is an outlier beyond what we know is a doped baseline. Kipchoge was an outlier when there was no Biological Passport, and blood doping was less restricted. He is an outlier in a sport when one-third of 2011 World Championship qualifiers anonymously admitted to doping in the past year. He is an outlier in a nation that didn't take any out of competition blood tests until 2015. He is an outlier in a nation with several dozen positive tests from other athletes. He is an outlier in events that showed one-third of endurance medalists (55 gold medalists) blood doped between 2001 and 2012.
So given the pattern and culture of the sport, there is no way to assume that Kipchoge is clean, or that the runners and performances you are measuring him against were clean.
Now, this I strongly agree with. There is absolutely NO way to assume Kipchoge is clean, and doing so is ridiculous. Conversely, there is also no way to assume Kipchoge is doping either, at least that I know of. We just flat out don't know the extent to which it is possible to have genetic freaks.
Let's assume a guy like Yuki is a baseline for clean, I'd be unbelievably shocked if he doped. That puts 2:08 or so as best possible clean performance. We can assume all performances faster than that are the result of doping. Given that, what's to say a guy like Kipchoge can't come along and be 5% (2:01:30) better than a guy like Yuki? Of course, the odds of this are very, very low. Anyone who lists Kipchoge as anything other than "likely to be doping" in their minds is being either willfully ignorant, or making a very deep appeal to what they believe Kipchoge's character to be.
However, your claim was not that Kipchoge is probably doping, it's that he IS doping since you stated emphatically it's not possible to perform at that level without drugs. Where is the basis for that claim?
I see what you're doing here but Kipchoge is clearly waaaaaay more talented than Yuki - so probably not the best comparison. And unfortunately I have to agree - if I had to bet my house I'd say he's on the sauce. We've just seen it too many times now.
LM wrote:
Clerk wrote:
Kipchoge is an outlier. But he is an outlier beyond what we know is a doped baseline. Kipchoge was an outlier when there was no Biological Passport, and blood doping was less restricted. He is an outlier in a sport when one-third of 2011 World Championship qualifiers anonymously admitted to doping in the past year. He is an outlier in a nation that didn't take any out of competition blood tests until 2015. He is an outlier in a nation with several dozen positive tests from other athletes. He is an outlier in events that showed one-third of endurance medalists (55 gold medalists) blood doped between 2001 and 2012.
So given the pattern and culture of the sport, there is no way to assume that Kipchoge is clean, or that the runners and performances you are measuring him against were clean.
Now, this I strongly agree with. There is absolutely NO way to assume Kipchoge is clean, and doing so is ridiculous. Conversely, there is also no way to assume Kipchoge is doping either, at least that I know of. We just flat out don't know the extent to which it is possible to have genetic freaks.
Let's assume a guy like Yuki is a baseline for clean, I'd be unbelievably shocked if he doped. That puts 2:08 or so as best possible clean performance. We can assume all performances faster than that are the result of doping. Given that, what's to say a guy like Kipchoge can't come along and be 5% (2:01:30) better than a guy like Yuki? Of course, the odds of this are very, very low. Anyone who lists Kipchoge as anything other than "likely to be doping" in their minds is being either willfully ignorant, or making a very deep appeal to what they believe Kipchoge's character to be.
However, your claim was not that Kipchoge is probably doping, it's that he IS doping since you stated emphatically it's not possible to perform at that level without drugs. Where is the basis for that claim?
You're whole argument in paragraph 2 is based on the assumption that Yuki's 2:08 is the best possible clean marathon. How likely is that? How likely is it that there's no clean marathoner faster than this squat Japanese man who works a full time job and races a marathon every other weekend?
TheOhioState wrote:
Rio Olympic marathon winner Jemima Sumgong of Kenya tested positive for EPO last year.
No way that Rio Olympic marathon winner Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya uses drugs.
I think Kipchoge is awesome and I will still think he's awesome if found to be on the juice. He's a legit good dude and an inspiration. That said, nobody is beyond suspicion, especially people breaking records and dominating.
bigtool05 wrote:
LM wrote:
Now, this I strongly agree with. There is absolutely NO way to assume Kipchoge is clean, and doing so is ridiculous. Conversely, there is also no way to assume Kipchoge is doping either, at least that I know of. We just flat out don't know the extent to which it is possible to have genetic freaks.
Let's assume a guy like Yuki is a baseline for clean, I'd be unbelievably shocked if he doped. That puts 2:08 or so as best possible clean performance. We can assume all performances faster than that are the result of doping. Given that, what's to say a guy like Kipchoge can't come along and be 5% (2:01:30) better than a guy like Yuki? Of course, the odds of this are very, very low. Anyone who lists Kipchoge as anything other than "likely to be doping" in their minds is being either willfully ignorant, or making a very deep appeal to what they believe Kipchoge's character to be.
However, your claim was not that Kipchoge is probably doping, it's that he IS doping since you stated emphatically it's not possible to perform at that level without drugs. Where is the basis for that claim?
You're whole argument in paragraph 2 is based on the assumption that Yuki's 2:08 is the best possible clean marathon. How likely is that? How likely is it that there's no clean marathoner faster than this squat Japanese man who works a full time job and races a marathon every other weekend?
I don't think you understand my post at all if that's your response. If there are faster clean performances then that would make Kipchoge less of an outlier, and therefore increase the likelihood of Kipchoge being clean.
Who I picked is irrelevant. If I took the clean benchmark to be 2:20, my point would still hold...which is that there is nothing to say that you can't have some human come along with ridiculous physiology and attitude we haven't seen before come along who can run 3%, 5%, or 10% faster than previous clean runners, or dopers. It's an objection to the "Previous WR is doped and most of the guys who run this fast are doped, therefore this new WR must also be doped".
You skeptical, jealous people are idiots.
Do you even read what you're writing?
"The maximum limit for the marathon is 2 hours and 10 minutes without drugs."
Then, "EPO gives only a 3% boost."
That would mean that Kipchoge can run somewhere around 2 hours and 5 minutes drug free.
Your stupid logic doesn't make any sense. How can you know for 100% sure what the natural limit is? And then say Kipchoge can break that natural limit without any drugs?
You just make blanket statements for the negative like what skeptics and cynicists do.
math logic wrote:
You skeptical, jealous people are idiots.
Do you even read what you're writing?
"The maximum limit for the marathon is 2 hours and 10 minutes without drugs."
Then, "EPO gives only a 3% boost."
That would mean that Kipchoge can run somewhere around 2 hours and 5 minutes drug free.
Your stupid logic doesn't make any sense. How can you know for 100% sure what the natural limit is? And then say Kipchoge can break that natural limit without any drugs?
You just make blanket statements for the negative like what skeptics and cynicists do.
I said none of these things...
Lets suggest this. Kipchoge's group is open to train with. All of you EPO and PED critics, pony up the cost of a flight to Kenya and spend a marathon training block with him and his training group. I'm certain you'll come back with zero evidence of any illegal stuff. May he's just more talented and much more mentally tough than anyone else in the sport. period. He's not gone 202 then DNFed or not even started his last five marathons. He's consistent, puts in the work and is so mentally tough it begs if he's clean. Like previous poster commented, Breaking 2 Monza event, if nothing else confirmed for him he can run at a 2 hour flat pace for the duration. Perhaps it took a bit longer to fully recover from the stress of that race, and Berlin 2018 was the pinnacle for him.
So you are allowed create threads saying he dopes but when I create a thread saying that the race is insignificant in the scale of the universe it gets deleted. I wanted to discuss things like alien life, evolution and the burning of the rainforest but the idiot mods here seem to think universal matters are not important. What the fukk is wrong with this place? I don't think he was juicing because he seems like he trains so dedicated and everything goes perfectly for him but the shoes he wore are worth over a minute. I hope Bekele gets to wear them.